nihilism

Ok. Here is my answer to Your original question.
I do not think that the superman idea is merely a Nietzchean one of based on overcoming by brute strength. there are supermen among is presently, who have been able to ensure almost unending challenges ofnthe worst kind.
And how? Because even if, God is dead, they understand evolution to have a.purpose, a god inspired purpose to overcome doubt, without whithout which the jungle would swallow recapture us.

The seeking of the light . of the implicit struggle to achieve superman status, is primordial. We should become god like. God minded. to overcome the evil of Satan’s doubt.

This redeeming quality in man separates men from animals, and this isn’t he example incam offer to show, that this overcoming is what has always caused the continuation of human life.

Without the ideas andntje ideals of the good, the beautiful and the wise, inherent even within our gene, all this, life as we got to know it, would have been impossible.

I challenge anyone here to connect the dots between these points and the ones that I am making above.

As that relates to passive/active nihilism in confronting conflicting goods in a particular context we might all be familiar with.

And, no, not just abortion.

I am up to the challenge, if the simplification I’d the circular argument referring above:

Passive in any context means relegating to a determinitive power, overcoming the Will, as per its opposite.

As such, the source of determination relegated to an extrinsic source, may compensate to the waning of am undeterminative power to will.

How can a will to power arise indeterminatively sans an extrinsic source , if not from an already arrived nominal Superman?

A developmentally ideal , evolving through the transcendent ideal, powered by a intentionality spelled out through the ages-makes sense.

On the other hand, almost every attempt to passively expunge the will to power has been fiercely met by those hell bent instead on actively espousing indeterminate power — even among those Bernie Sanders supporters who reject Nietzsche’s will to power as synonymous with those K Street sycophants that Biden is counting on.

Or would you argue that once new world ubermen confront the old world facsimiles, neither passive not active nihilism will uproot Donald Trump’s own sycophants?

Besides, what’s nominal about the money being poured into the big banks clearly determined to sustain crony capitalism as the only inherently extrinsic antidote to anarchy?

Also, what does that make you then, the last of the idealists among those here I have always contemptuously described as “serious philosophers”? You tell me: how are they not basically Satyrian pedants?

Really, just go to the fucking dictionary and look up the word “gibberish”!!!

Iambiguous said

“Also, what does that make you then, the last of the idealists among those here I have always contemptuously described as “serious philosophers”? You tell me: how are they not basically Satyrian pedants?”

Not really, but in all due earnestness, whichever party You insist on belong ing to, please take note of eternally recurrent repetitive phenomenal cycles of alternating epochs, whereby the many stills develop through constant motion into a simulated movement.

Various descriptions of nihilism from Nietzche’s preceptions through Jasper’s psychoanalytic applications, the nihilism change, descriptively.

A good analogy, iambig, could be the feeling of stability and lack of movement we experience here on earth, whereas the earth rotates and revolves around a sun, a star among trillions of stars , belong ing to numerous galaxies, which also move at tremendous velocities.

Besides the probable idea that there may be innumerable parallel universes.

With that in mind, anything, or everything may be a potential ground for a unique possibility. St.James proved that there are at least two identical copies.

Have You read him ? If so, could You comment on that? I will try to dig it up, but it seems like an endless chore.

The above is merely an extension on Das-Ein as the hidden perspective on the Vedantic influence on Heidegger.

Besides, Bernie Sanders bowed out.

Unbelievable.

Google Alan Sokal: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

That’s what I was doing here. Fairly or not, I construe much of what you post as intellectual gibberish. So I just strung my own words together as well. None of it was meant to be taken seriously.

Or again [as I still suspect] is that what you are doing as well: poking fun at any number of “serious philosophers” that spew out worlds of words here that have almost no relevance to the lives that we actually live.

Actually I am not doing that. Philosophy, serious, or not must have truth in it, truth that can, and have to be backed up by referential authority.
It may be strung together, yes, in a ‘postmodern manner’ but still it is a re-construction, at a place of deconstruction, or a partially differentiated place-where the phenomenal reduction settles in an epoche.

So far ok?

All the elements of the phenomena, then, may become strange, like Kafka’s bugs, Sartre’s Nausea.

Back will finish the answer below. Needed break.

Ah, now I get it. Thanks.

I asked You for a break, and ill be back shortly. Don’t be so eager to disprove a partial derivitive

Back, thanks Iambiguous.

Now where was I?

Ok. The differing contextual history of Dasein. Try to put it as simply as possible , so that most of the confusion can be put to the disassociation between building up and tearing down of civilizations as we have come to know it.

Or, constructing it and deconstructing it.

One must agree, we should, that Nihilism, passive or active appear as opposite ideas, in fact deconstruction entails tearing down of rational apprehensions, again as we know it.

Tearing down started a long time ago, after Hobbs and those guys started to whack away the famous cogito, and that mode or the irrational sneaked into the equation.

Take equation as a metaphor if You like, for Leibnitz did in fact let it sneak in the back door , being a mathematician and a superb philosopher concurrently.

So. As time went on and modernity became more and more irrational- we arrived to post modernism, with the various methods , with differing post modern philosophers interpreting the trend, or the process with which to back up their volumes and volumes of flows of ideas, each one borrowing from the other, they shared knowledge and often became each others students and teachers.

But to return to Dasein, there were oriental authorities backing up the idea of Dasein, and will dig it up for You, not today, but tomorrow for sure, and You can hold me to that.

But the idea is someone faded, even though I reasoned with it only a month ago: but in a nutshell, it consists of the idea that da sein and das ein are relatable structurally as illustrative of the idea brought up, in this forum, that das is neutreal German, whereas der and die are masculine and feminine respectfully.

Again I will illustrate this when more time becomes available. This is an important idea, for Dasein is not a static idea, but moves along temporally from all the way back to Hegel I believe and through Heidegger and Jasper. Even now Jasper’s influence is taken up by more recent thinkers , and it would maybe worth it to follow that through, nominally at least.

So, with that, it is worth it to connect dots, that involve Dasein with what You and I must admit I find our self in a state of fracture, and as You suggested, another break occurs when the philosophy of Jaspers, who was both, psychiatrist and philosopher-compares with the earliest. and MORE inclusive definitions of Husserl-Heidegger.

I am for it, and it excites me to be able to delve into it, and as You can see, by now, from no other motive then that I really love philosophy.

I may, or should I say, I will have more time next week to go over some of the missed stuff, and hopefully search the soft drives that have the required references.

That we do, both of us, construct and deconstruct language, is no willful attempt to misrepresent anything, first-we are prevy to the times we are living in, and second- we try to do our best to express meaning and opinion with the cards we were dealt with and to use them in a manner that our tools can accord toward that objective.

So, since You have given me a certain engaging motive, with or without congruent participation, (or any other member’s) I shall further develop this forum.

Of course You can reserve the right to abrogate, or whatever, since it is, after all Your forum, if You wish to look at it in that manner.

I do agree with Your positing Dasein as the fulcrum upon which any further discussion can hinge.

As far as the tools are concerned , the three main ones that help to bring the study of nihilism together were, and still consistently are :

Transcendentals
Universals
and Game theory.

These are really the skeleton upon which the prime facie skin of most philosophical concerns appea. to be built upon , and muscle develops the ability to apply them , through them.

This method, corresponding to The Method written, again to the method Descartes so famously wrote about explains the pivotal paradigmn position he has been accorded within the lengthy history of philosophy.

I would consider Will Durant to be this type of analysis, and though it’s skin deep, I’d rather start with him then say the equally famous Tractatus of Wittgenstein.

But that choice is a matter of preference.

I wouldn’t have said it better myself.

Ok, but then, do You want to go into it , more in depth, or, refer to it by and by? Nevertheless I will search for the promised reference to begin with.

And another thing. How would You like Your orange juice pulp or no pulp, or some?

Nihilism
Nolen Gertz at the Aeon online site

Just out of curiosity, to what extent did Nietzsche himself accomplish this?

In other words, it’s one thing to erect new values in a series of aphorisms in a series of books. To intellectually broach the uberman as a philosopher in a world of words.

But out in the world, given his interactions with others, what did he actually accomplish by way of embodying these bold new parameters?

Any advocates of Nietzsche here familiar with that part of the story?

Just doubts? How about the passive nihilist who remains passive because he has thought himself into believing that any new values are no less subsumed in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy? How about the passive nihilist who seems convinced that “I” can never really become this vaunted uberman because in making the transition from might makes right to right makes might, he is no less “fractured and fragmented”?

Instead, he sees any number of wannabe ubermen [like the folks over at Know Thyself] creating their own world of words reality out of “general description intellectual contraptions”. Autodidactic assessments in which their own “superior” intellect is predicated almost entirely on their own rendition of this:

1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the objective philosophical truth
3] I have access to the objective philosophical truth because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational

Thus the author trudges on in promulgating his own intellectual facsimile…

To believe in what? In what context? Regarding what conflicted behaviors? Pertaining to what conflicted goods? Derived from what particular sense of identity?

Come on, have “you” ever known a nihilist to drink orange juice?!

We all drink Dr. Pepper, Squirt or Mountain Dew.

And, incredibly enough, no one knows why.

Maybe akin and cause to the Zen of refreshment?:

‘Some have argued for an origin of Dasein in Chinese philosophy and Japanese philosophy: according to Tomonobu Imamichi, Heidegger’s concept of Dasein was inspired—although Heidegger remained silent on this—by Okakura Kakuzo’s concept of das-in-der-Welt-sein (being-in-the-worldness, worldliness) expressed in The Book of Tea to describe Zhuangzi’s Taoist philosophy, which Imamichi’s teacher had offered to Heidegger in 1919, after having followed lessons with him the year before.[15] Parallel concepts are also found in Indian philosophy[16][17]’

{ implying ‘in der Welt’ to BE a neutralized (nihilized assumptive synthesis)>>>>>placed in a role that is more suitable in neutral situational contexts<<<<< ? >>>>>}Schopenhauer - ‘The world as Will and Representation’

Now Nietzche pounces on Schopenhauer’s 'passive nihilism, and here it’s of interest to note Schpenhauer’s orientalism, and refer this to the following:

‘Passive nihilism, on the other hand, is epitomized by resignation; the prognosis that life is an “unprofitable episode,” (in Schopenhauer’s words). Nietzsche equated passive nihilism with Schopenhauer’s repudiation of life via the denial of the Will as a great threat. Nihilism in its passive form, while adopting the same prognosis of existence as active nihilism, thus nevertheless takes the opposite stance of active nihilism as to how we should respond to the problem of a meaningless, value-less, and chaotic existence.’

{See how the circle closes? }

{It ain’t broke, and promised to keep it alive }:

Anyway who thinks Nietzsche is a nihilist must have never really read anything he’s written. The great obsession of Nietzsche’s thought is to overcome nihilism; but to overcome nihilism you have to see it for what it is, look the danger of nihilism in the face with unremitting courage, and this requires recognizing that all the seeming bulwarks against nihilism — scientific culture (objective truth), Christianity — are themselves symptoms of nihilism. Overcoming nihilism requires new values, and indeed, values based on an affirmation of valuation itself.

From the preface of the Will to Power :

For one should make no mistake about the meaning of the title that this gospel of the future wants to bear. “The Will to Power: Attempt at a Revaluation of All Values”-in this formulation a countermovement finds expression, regarding both principle and task; a movement that in some future will take the place of this perfect nihilism-but presupposes it, logically and psychologically. and certainly can come only after and out of it. For why has the advent of nihilism become necessary? Because the values we have had hitherto thus draw their final consequence; because nihilism represents the ultimate logical conclusion of our great values and ideals-because we must experience nihilism before we can find out what value these “values” really had.- We require, sometime, new values.

{Can we/ i sustain the dots connecting any possible idea? That is in essence, is what structural good faith implies.
That is really the only antidote .available!}

On one hand you could call all those ‘tablets of faith’ aspects and symptoms of nihilistic thinking (what was that essay… how truth finally became fable or something like that). But on the other hand, the practice of ‘christian’ behavior and belief in objective truth are not things put into man by nihilistic thinking… rather something about his nature - prior to any analysis - is found in the character of christian morality and the practice of inductive reasoning. Man is naturally inclined to make just such errors in reasoning, and these errors have even helped him. Nietzsche’s nihilist is someone who has not come to terms with the aimlessness of existence, the absence of any unity or ends in nature, and the lack of freewill… someone who cannot, or I should say ‘doesn’t believe’, in creating values despite these missing features. And so far, no, we haven’t seen anything of real atheism yet. Who said it; our atheists are much too pious.

But that aside, christian and objective ways of thinking are not nihilistic in a functionalist sense because they’re trends of thinking that have proven to be useful. But in an essentialist sense they’re nihilistic because they require belief in falsities in order to create value. But they create value nonetheless and are therefore not ‘nihilistic’.

Nietzsche tended to ignore the evolutionary basis for sympathetic and compassionate behavior. But anthropology was young then. In a sense he confused a cause with an effect; christian ethics and scientific methodology were memes expressing genetic qualities, not vice versa. The inclination to cooperate with others is already there. It isn’t ‘christian’. And the inclination to use logic in reasoning is already there. It’s isn’t ‘scientific or objective’.

Correct, but human merely human, as Jesus has trypartial truth as derivatives to sublimate lack of structural development.

Greco Roman, Oriental (Tibet and the Silk Road,) and Jewish: he could merely juggle the terms, where as induction is merely of retroeffective substitution for a necessity equally retrofitted to specification.

That is why he had to pass over.
I’m just guessing for the appropriateness of the term.

Maybe I’m close but I will look it up.

The holiday originated in the Torah, where the word pesach refers to the ancient Passover sacrifice (known as the Paschal Lamb); it is also said to refer to the idea that God “passed over” (pasach) the houses of the Jews during the 10th plague on the Egyptians, the slaying of the first born.

{The last Supper was the Passover meal} affirmed by the Apostles - Nitzche, could not help but including the Judio-Christian denial within a wider affirmation, in a transvaluatio n- that is why Wagner dismissed him , as a reductive effect of a relentless auto-erotic devolution: for was Nietzhe’s father not an instigator of a Lutheran conscious?

That is why the sinless orientalism ties into all 3: Schopenhauer, Heidegger , and Nietzche. It was a flow, -which Wagner tried to unsuccessfully and totally negate.

Wagner became to successful sentimentality, who set up the crusade toward annihilation. He either missed the mark, or, deliberately misrepresented it-reducing the will to apprehension.

HAPPY EASTER EVERYONE !

Nihilism
Nolen Gertz at the Aeon online site

Actually, when others are described to be nihilists in accounts today the focus is either on the fierce means they employ in pursuit of one or another “kingdom of ends”, or because their views are such as to actually be an attack on one’s own.

I can’t recall a single reference to nihilism in the media these days that comes even close to my own entirely existential assessment.

Defined? Right. As though a thoroughly comprehensive definition can in fact be concocted and made applicable to a world as phenomenally complex and convoluted as to include, among other things, the “human condition”.

In any event, you know where I insist that any definitions “thought up” here must go. Not only out into the world of human interactions but made germane to an actual set of circumstances where the word nihilism might reasonably come up. When, for example, making a distinction between meaning derived from the either/or world or meaning derived from, well, take a wild guess.

Again, not my own rendition. Not an assessment derived from daseins confronting conflicting goods in a world ever and always embedded in political economy.

I challenge any Nietzschean here to explore that with me “in a particular context”.

As for the epistemological, ethical and metaphysical components of nihilism…how far from the domain of the “serious philosopher” will he go?

Nihilism
Nolen Gertz at the Aeon online site

Again and again and again: here, in my view, we can only go back to what must surely be an enormous gap between what each of us as individuals think we know [about anything] and all that there is to be known given the perspective of some entity [which most call God] privy to comprehending everything there is to know about existence itself.

For some, like me, this encompasses a particularly grim sense of futility; one that is considerably more demoralizing than in how others seem to react. Some in fact just shrug it all off and seem more than content with embracing what they consider to be all that they need to know in order to propose all manner of completely “thought up” narratives about the “human condition”. There are any number of ILP members who have themselves offered us their own elaborate set of assumptions about the way things are and why and how they got that way. Some through God and some through sheer “philosophical” deduction. No need to mention names but you know the ones.

Of course from my frame of mind there tends to be two things they all share in common:

1] they almost never bring these “worlds of words” down out of their own theoretical clouds bursting at the seams with all manner of “thought up” assumptions

2] none [to my knowledge[ have ever succeeded in demonstrating why all rational [and in some cases virtuous] men and women are obligated to think the same…through a philosophical equivalent of the “scientific method”.

Instead, I construe their efforts as more a psychological contraption aimed at providing them with an intellectual foundation they can attach “I” too in order to attain and then sustain a measure of solace in a world that can often be brutally painful. Like ours todays.

I am not able to go this far myself. There are simply too many things that we can know [and share with others] in regard to the either/or world to make this frame of mind plausible. Do not mathematics, the laws of nature, the empirical world, the rules of language provide us “for all practical purposes” from day to day to day, with all of the standards, foundations and grounds needed such that “knowledge claims” exist that we are readily able to demonstrate as in fact true objectively for all of us?

This begins to crumble for me only in acknowledging at least the possibility of Sim worlds, dream worlds, computer generated realties, or the stuff explored in sci-fi accounts.

Or the possibility of solipsism or determinism.

Why? Because, again, the gap between “I” and a definitive understanding of “all there is” is still very much the reality we all interact in.

But it’s not for nothing that the overwhelming preponderance of us go about the business of living our lives day in and day not at all paralyzed by the thought our interactions cannot “philosophically” be made to correspond with “reality itself”.