Sure, but he can complain. A nihilist cannot on moral grounds complain about finding a used diaper in his pizza. But given human preferences in general, he could complain, saying the management is fucked up and will lose his or her and likely other business. Nihilists are not restrained from complaining, nor is it hypocritical. My God, remember yourself in your nihilist days: complain, complain.
The new you complains via a mask. This is what the return of morals has done in your case.
Without morality or ethics, what is a complaint? Without an objective law codified there is no reason to not find a diaper in his pizza for civility revolves around laws.
I’m masking my complaints, how so?
Bingo!
But my contention here is that “right” and “wrong” behaviors either revolve around some essential truth and/or transcending font [which most call God] or around any number of hopelessly conflicting existential contraptions rooted historically, culturally and experientially in a No God world.
Then I explore [or seek to explore] the actual existential parameters of those who do “create morality where none existed before”.
In other words, in any given context, why one set of prescriptions/proscriptions and not another? And how is this related to the manner in which I construe “I” here as basically an existential contraption rooted in dasein?
Indeed, how are your own values not the embodiment of this?
Again and again and again: What on earth do you mean by this?
What particular morality out in what particular context out in one particular world construed from what particular point of view?
It is ludicrous to speak of morality as “wrong”. Why? Because whenever men and women choose to congregate into one or another village, community, state or nation, there must be “rules of behavior” that either reward or punish certain behaviors.
And all this particular nihilist complains about are those who insist that only those behaviors sanctioned by “one of us” get rewarded.
And then the extent to which this revolves more around might makes right, right makes might or moderation, negotiation and compromise.
But even here I point out over and again that this particular “intellectual” assessment is but one more existential contraption that here and now “I” happen to subscribe to “in my head”.
In no way shape or form would I ever suggest that I can demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to subscribe to it as well.
“create morality where none existed before”.
Phew. Saved me there. Well kinda.
"Without morality or ethics, what is a complaint? Without an objective law codified there is no reason to not find a diaper in his pizza for civility revolves around laws.
I’m masking my complaints, how so?"
Although, come to think about it life these days really don’t seem so bad unless you Are, objectified… It begs the question. Have not any morals standards stood in the way for anything bringing progressive change be deemed differently than Any and I mean ANY type of ethic standards. Come on can we base our already based on values and ideals towards what should and shouldn’t be correctly agreed upon somewhere else where we haven’t any “A-moral-ally” ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ variable? How was we complaining how so? I still need to KnooOooow. 
Have not we already contemplated whatever motives we thought be the actual reason for us choosing what we believed to be ‘Ultimately’ Moral
I doth think Iambiguious Protests too much. Ease up on fellow students of the game. 
What sense does that make???
You expect the anti-abortionists to fund abortion clinics and to “celebrate” abortions?
Maybe rewards for thieves and serial killers? Thank the thug who beats you up?
As Joker the nihilist, you complained all the time. I would say one very clear area one can complain as a nihilist is around hypocrisy and fake personas. IOW people judging from moral positions they do not live up to. Or power masking as morals.
as far as preferences….
well humans will tend to have needs in common, tendencies, especially within culture groups, but common bodies will have common needs. So complaints about preferences 1) inform businesses and governments, neighbors and family, coworkers and…you get the idea about what you want, and this will matter to many organisations and people. It will also not matter to others. But you face the exact same kinds of resistance when it comes to morals.
You got a Jewish mask over complaints about jews and israel. It’s Colbert pretending to be right wing, but here you pretending to be some sort of neo-con Jew.
Huh?
My point is that there is a distinction to be made between those who insist that abortion is essentially, objectively, universally, deontologically etc., wrong and therefore anyone who either has one or performs one will always be punished and never be rewarded, and those who argue that the morality of abortion is rooted existentially in dasein and conflicting goods and therefore legislation should revolve around moderation, negotiation and compromise.
I merely suggest in turn that whatever any particular individual comes to conclude here, it is a value judgment embedded in an existential contraption embedded in dasein; more so than a frame of mind that can be demonstrated to in fact be the obligation of all rational and virtuous people to embrace and embody.
Here the issue revolves [for me] around those able to rationalize thievery and murder because their moral narrative revolves solely around “what is in it for me?”.
That is their reward.
On the other hand, there are moral objectivists who argue that thievery and murder are necessarily immoral. And that, therefore, it is necessarily moral to punish those who engage in these behaviors.
IOW, you’re disavowing the statement you made in the quote.
That’s just your preferred solution. You have nothing to support it, nothing to justify it. It’s in no way a necessary ‘ought’ for a nihilist. Terror and violence are just as ‘good’. Explain why terror and violence should not be used instead.
So what are you saying here? It seems to be the same thing as the quote I posted. You seem to be saying that immoral people and immoral behavior ought to be rewarded, or at least they/it ought not to be punished.
In other words, I’m allowing you to avow that I have not properly disavowed that which I thought I had no need to disavow in the first place.
And yet even my “preferred solution” is seen by me as little more than just another existential contraption subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge.
And all I can offer by way of supporting it is to note how conflicting goods are handled by those regimes that practice might makes right more rather than less than those that practice right makes might more rather than less those that practice democracy and the rule of law.
But even here my own personal support of one approach over the others is no less an existential contraption subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge.
After all, had my life been very, very different, I might well have embraced terror and violence as the means of choice. Besides, it is often the choice of those objectivists who argue that particular “Kingdoms of Ends” justify any means. Or those sociopaths/nihilists who argue that as long as a particular means gets them what they want that need be as far as it go with respect to morality. Morality here, some argue, is for the weak. And then there are the Nietzscheans who argue that the ubermen are justified in casting the weak aside. Morality for many of them revolves around the assumption that they are just better able to call the shots. And thus more deserving to.
I merely speculate that all of this sort of thing is bascially applicable to you and everyone else as well.
What I am suggesting is that the manner in which particular individuals situate this “general description” of morality out in a particular world revolving around a particular context revolving around particular conflicting behaviors revolving around particular conflicting value judgments, will revolve in turn around conflicting assessments of which behaviors should be punished and which should be rewarded.
And that this in my view revolves more around dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, than it does around anything that ethicists and political scientists might construct in the way of an argument that is said to be the obligation of all rational and virtuous men and women to embody.
Morality and ethics more or less revolves around conscious will while enforcing massive collective interests of survival for pragmatic purposes. God isn’t necessary in these social interactions of organization, God isn’t really all that much involved although many billions of followers that believe in various manifestations of God certainly are.
Morality and ethics is all about will particularly of a conscious political body from which all authority stems from. Nobody cares about dasein Biggie, only you do.
Morality and ethics stems from the top of the social pyramid, it is a pyramid Biggie, make no mistake about that.
It’s too bad that contrarianism is so lost on my countrymen in North America or the particular ability to understanding irony, hubris, and absurdity when one is confronted by it. I like to think of myself as a kind of maenad here that although I am wild, naked, crazy, chaotic, and maddening there is tidbits of wisdom or enlightenment to be found from my ramblings for the mentally initiated. Those that are not initiated don’t concern me for they are like drift wood floating on the sea within a hurricane.
I mean how obvious does one must be? I would think an educated eight year old could understand my latest shift in posts especially if they had a rudimentary understanding of history, philosophy, and reflected absurdity. I cannot make it any more simpler.
What resistance do I face? Please tell me.
I like parody. Inside it feels like sarcasm, which can be pleasant. It also allows me to express my own internal minority opinions. It’s taboo, often, which is a plus…
I mean you in the general sense, anyone. If you try to get your preferences agreed to by others, you face resistence. If you try to get your morals faced by others, you face resistence. I think when presenting morals, one feels like this is stronger than preferences. YOu are arguing what is good, objectively. But in the end you will face everyone’s preferences and ideas and resistence, just like a nihilist would.
Excellent you understand contrarianism, there’s hope for you yet. You know if they ever censor the entire internet eventually which is their dream contrarianism might be all we’re allowed to have left. Maybe I am starting a trend in advance anticipation? Who knows?!
Of course, resistance is everywhere! I like resistance, conflict, debate, and disagreement for it is the only way we learn, grow, or evolve. Only children shun and shy away from such particularly adult sized children. Only children cannot withstand a jab here and there, philosophy is a blood sport.
Sure, I mentioned Colbert. Likely you dislike him in the extreme, but he is skilled. I love watching him with Bill O’reilly. O’reilly was a skilled bully Fox News interviewer, but he was utterly confused by Colbert who was agreeing with him, but in a way that made it clear he was parodying. It was too much for O’Reilly to deal with. He couldn’t figure out a way to deal with the extra layer.
Right, but I was responding to…
you responing to a nihilist merely having preferences and complaints. But I don’t see this as a disadvantage: 1) you meet resistence regardless 2) the nihilist can pretend to have morals or use moral arguments.
You know sometimes it take’s a mirror reflection of somebody to disarm their own ignorance and stupidity. You just need to hold a mirror right in front of their faces making it impossible for them to take their eyes off of their own reflection. You destroy them with the potency of their own reflection.
A nihilist ought to believe in nothing for nothing is objectified, true, and real therefore their preferences, wants, or ideals outside of themselves is irrelevant.
A nihilist most certainly can pretend to be moral and ethical amongst others but a skilled moral or ethical philosopher who is also a tactician of the mind can see right through all of that. You’re probably thinking because I am an ex nihilist that I must be an impostor but that is not true at all for I see a variety of things in a new light where I very much embrace morality or ethics albeit in a very unconventional manner of course. I have seen various revelations that makes it where I no longer uphold nihilism or anarchism anymore. It is of course very complicated to talk about in one thread alone of course.
Since all your responses indicate that you don’t think you said anything different than what you have already said a few hundred times, there is no point in pursuing it.
So there are many possible games of morality that can be played. Moralities constructed just as games are constructed. Not arbitrary creations, but based on human interests, needs and abilities.
You got born into a situation where people are playing “basketball” morality. Your parents, teachers and acquaintances taught you how to play the game. If you were born somewhere else, then you might be playing “soccer”.
If you don’t like “basketball”, then you can try to force another game on the other players or you can try convince them to adopt other rules. You might be successful and you might not.
There are always going to be people who would prefer to play a different games. That’s not going to “go away”.
If an ‘objectivist’ insists that the rules of “basketball” be enforced when you are playing “basketball”, then there is nothing wrong with that or wrong with the ‘objectivist’.
Objectivists personally prefer a particular game. Nihilists personally prefer a particular game. Objectivists and nihilists have different reasons for their preferences.
None of this is new or astonishing. It’s not incompatible with nihilism. I don’t even think that it’s incompatible with objective morality.
So what exactly is your issue?
Why criticize objectivists when they try to enforce the rules of the current game?
Why criticize objectivists or nihilists when they try to change the game?
Why are you in a “hole”? Why is this somehow upsetting?
It can work like that. It is also just harder to track. Someone is agreeing with you. How do you disagree? And the moment you disagree, they just agree more with what you say and take it further.
I think your mirror would be stronger if it focused less on Jews. You and I disagree about Jews, though not Israel. But even setting that aside, I think it is a distraction. So many people buy and work for the kinds of policies and ideas you hate, and the Jewish thing acts just as a distraction. They won’t notice the mirror. Fixed Cross will, but that’s a minority.
A nihilist can believe in all sorts of phenomena, it’s just morals the nihilist doesn’t believe in.
Well, that certainly narrows things down. And a skilled tactician will always be a problem, regardless.
No, I am not thinking that. I suppose it’s possible, but I just took you at your word. We are our words here. Of course sometimes I think people are bsing, but I can’t really see why you would do it about this.
Sure. My views have changed over time. But feel free to start a thread. I’d be interested to know what the core reasons were for hte change. As in experiences, meeting certain people, contact with books or other media. It’s a fairly big change, at least potentially, so it would be interesting to know the source. You could reincarnate an old membership here, one of JOkers, if you think it would take away from your current persona.
Okay, but, once again, how is this entirely abstract “assessment” of human morality actually relevant to the point that I made above?
This one:
[b]…I explore [or seek to explore] the actual existential parameters of those who do “create morality where none existed before”.
In other words, in any given context, why one set of [behavioral] prescriptions/proscriptions and not another? And how is this related to the manner in which I construe “I” here as basically an existential contraption rooted in dasein?
Indeed, how are your own values not the embodiment of this? [/b]
More abstract bullshit. More flailing accusations about my irrelevance here.
Meanwhile you and Wendy and all the other generally right wing political objectivists here – re race or gender or sexual preference or Trumpworld – huff and puff about the scumbag liberals who are too fucking stupid to see things exactly the way you do.
You go though all these political reconfigurations here – nihilist, anarchist etc. – but always in the end it is the “I” that you are “here and now” that finally – finally! – has everything all figured out.
Well, sure, if we’re talking about those at the very top of the political economy food chain — those who own and operate the global economy — you’ll get no argument from me.
But where do men and women like this fit into your current assessment of “human reality”? Instead, by and large, they have succeeded in creating a world in which the working class stiffs who all flock to Trump’s wall, are still being stomped on by the ruling class and their crony capitalists superstructure.
And if that’s not Trumpworld, it is certainly in the vicinity.
And, come on, what on earth does any of this really have to do with your abstract assessment of ethics and morality here?
Or is the “real Joker” somehow entangled in this:
It’s too bad that contrarianism is so lost on my countrymen in North America or the particular ability to understanding irony, hubris, and absurdity when one is confronted by it. I like to think of myself as a kind of maenad here that although I am wild, naked, crazy, chaotic, and maddening there is tidbits of wisdom or enlightenment to be found from my ramblings for the mentally initiated. Those that are not initiated don’t concern me for they are like drift wood floating on the sea within a hurricane.
On the other hand, that basically covers any moral and political narrative/agenda.
Once one wades through the several layers of irony.
I’ve never understood this frame of mind. Philosophers have grappled down through the ages with that which we could really, really, [b]really[/b], [b][u]really[/b][/u] know beyond all doubt is true for all of us.
Everyone draws the line here in different places. “I think therefore I am” is as good a place to start as any. But how do I know that what I think I am is not just part of some sim world, or a dream world, or a wholly determined universe, or an understanding of reality/existence that the human mind does not even have access to?
God maybe? Or whatever brought into existence the existence of existence itself?
Still, as we go about the business of living our lives from day to day, most of us are willing to take an epistemological leap to mathematics and science and the laws of nature and the rules of language.
Sure, we have no way of knowing if ontologically and/or teleologically all of even that is objectively true, but it certainly does seem to be, right? Objectively true for all of us. 24/7. 365 days a year.
At least so far.
No, instead, for me, nihilism revolves far, far more around the extent to which we can ascertain with certainty that our moral, political and aesthetic values are true for all of us; or, perhaps, only thought to be true by some of us.
I am a moral nihilist intent on examining the philosophies [in a place like this] of those who claim not to be.
But: if we do choose to interact with others what can this…
“…their preferences, wants, or ideals outside of themselves is irrelevant”
…possibly mean? In other words, for all practical purposes. And, for all practical purpose, our values have ever and always been derived from within the existential parameters of the lives that we actually live with others.
I don’t call choosing my own behaviors “pretending” so much as taking a political leap embedded existentially in the life that I have lived. As opposed to the lives that others have lived.
Ah, but when I do broach “choice” in this manner, however skilled the moral or ethical philosophers might be, I find that their chief concern often revolves around having to conclude that the manner in which I have come to broach the question “how ought I to live?” here may well be applicable to them too.