I am a political nihilist

[dissipate]

I am a political nihilist. This means that that I have a complete disbelief in all that is ideological (i.e. any positive belief system that ends with "ist", "ism" or "ian"). In terms of my own outlook and behavior, all I really know is that I have preferences and desires, and I seek means to attain that which I prefer/desire. Of course, when it comes to earning a 'living,' the state that I live under has taken it upon itself to strip me of a portion of my income and forces me to modify my behavior. In essence it has overridden my preferences.

The case for ideological thinking (left, right, libertarian, socialist) is extremely weak and quite easily refuted. People exist, people manipulate their environement, and engage in certain activities. Labeling any of these things in a particular manner is entirely subjective and rather nonsensical. I call these labels word games. Radical 'leftists' would call anyone who charges 'rent' or 'interest' or 'employs' people in a 'business' a 'capitalist' and an 'exploiter.' On the other end of the spectrum a radical 'libertarian' calls particular objects in his environment his 'property.' In reality, however, from a reductionist standpoint a capitalist is fundamentally no different than anyone else biologically speaking, and a libertarian's property is fundamentally no different than that which he would not call his property, physically speaking. These labels depend on subjective perspectives at all times. Hence, there is absolutely nothing logical or scientific about ideologies, they are all emotionally trumped up ad hoc concepts, incapable of being used to describe or understand reality.

From these intellectually bankrupt ideologies we sometimes get physical written documents designed to represent them, under a general heading of 'social contracts.' Of course, the documents are so vague and so incomplete, it is absurd to think that there is any single objective way to interpret them or live by them. So all the state does to get around this is to establish an order of 'judges' or other 'bureaucrats' to tell everyone what it means 'officially.' To fill in the gaps so to speak. But who really knows? There is documentation for computer programs that are magnitudes longer that are used to explain how a particular program runs that is magnitudes less complex than a population of millions of individuals. Then there is the issue of actually believing that any group of individuals could possibly know what is 'good' for some other group of individuals, because inevitably 'good' is a word game.

This same reasoning of course can be applied to religion. The word 'god' is a word game. No one has any scientific concept of god, or anything supernatural for that matter. No one is a 'child of god' or born in 'sin.' It's all just words designed to conjur up emotions and cult based behavior. Just as I prefer to avoid all religious concepts and behavior (such as prayer), I prefer as well to avoid all that is political and ideological. If someone asks me to pray with them I will tell them no. Likewise when political bodies force me to modify my behavior in the face of their armed agents or 'bureaucrats' based on 'legislation' and 'social contracts' I do so only because I prefer obedience to the alternative of death, fines or imprisonment. In other words I prefer to be left alone by anyone or anything that is based on the concepts of 'god' and or 'country.'

With that being said, I don't know how I fit in around here...

[apathy maybe]

I'm an anarchist. This means that that I have a complete disbelief in all that is ideological (i.e. anything that ends with "ist", "ism" or "ian"). In terms of my own outlook and behaviour, all I really know is that I have preferences and desires, and I seek means to attain that which I prefer/desire. Of course, when it comes to earning a 'living,' the state that I live under has taken it upon itself to strip me of a portion of my income and forces me to modify my behaviour. In essence it has overridden my preferences.

Etc.

The only thing is, my desires etc. should not interfere with another. That is, I should be able to do whatever I want, so long as I don't impinge the rights of other person's to do whatever they want (and vise versa).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

This same reasoning of course can be applied to religion. The word 'god' is a word game. No one has any scientific concept of god, or anything supernatural for that matter. No one is a 'child of god' or born in 'sin.' It's all just words designed to conjur up emotions and cult based behavior. Just as I prefer to avoid all religious concepts and behavior (such as prayer), I prefer as well to avoid all that is political and ideological. If someone asks me to pray with them I will tell them no. Likewise when political bodies force me to modify my behavior in the face of their armed agents or 'bureaucrats' based on 'legislation' and 'social contracts' I do so only because I prefer obedience to the alternative of death, fines or imprisonment. In other words I prefer to be left alone by anyone or anything that is based on the concepts of 'god' and or 'country.'

The term ignostic was invented for such individuals. Blasted definitions.

[ZeroNowhere]

The case for ideological thinking (left, right, libertarian, socialist) is extremely weak and quite easily refuted
At least it's an ethos.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I am a political nihilist

This means that that I have a complete disbelief in all that is ideological (i.e. anything that ends with "ist", "ism" or "ian")

The irony

[griffjam]

so you believe in nihilism? to be a nihilist means rejecting belief in everything, even nihilism.

Just because you're not a ideologue doesn't mean you have to be a nihilist.

It's like Chris Rock said, "Anyone who makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a fucking fool."



Anarchism is a socio-economic and political theory, but not an ideology. The difference is very important. Basically, theory means you have ideas; an ideology means ideas have you. Anarchism is a body of ideas, but they are flexible, in a constant state of evolution and flux, and open to modification in light of new data. As society changes and develops, so does anarchism. An ideology, in contrast, is a set of "fixed" ideas which people believe dogmatically, usually ignoring reality or "changing" it so as to fit with the ideology, which is (by definition) correct. All such "fixed" ideas are the source of tyranny and contradiction, leading to attempts to make everyone fit onto a Procrustean Bed. This will be true regardless of the ideology in question -- Leninism, Objectivism, "Libertarianism," or whatever -- all will all have the same effect: the destruction of real individuals in the name of a doctrine, a doctrine that usually serves the interest of some ruling elite.

[ComradeOm]

Anarchism is a socio-economic and political theory, but not an ideology. The difference is very important. Basically, theory means you have ideas; an ideology means ideas have you. Anarchism is a body of ideas, but they are flexible, in a constant state of evolution and flux, and open to modification in light of new data. As society changes and develops, so does anarchism. An ideology, in contrast, is a set of "fixed" ideas which people believe dogmatically, usually ignoring reality or "changing" it so as to fit with the ideology, which is (by definition) correct. All such "fixed" ideas are the source of tyranny and contradiction, leading to attempts to make everyone fit onto a Procrustean Bed. This will be true regardless of the ideology in question -- Leninism, Objectivism, "Libertarianism," or whatever -- all will all have the same effect: the destruction of real individuals in the name of a doctrine, a doctrine that usually serves the interest of some ruling elite.In short: our -ism is good, their -ism is bad

[griffjam]

In short: our -ism is good, their -ism is bad

No you're thinking of dualism bad, non-dualism good:lol:

But seriously, the most telling difference between anarchists and Marxists is that the latter tend to associate themselves with one thinker's program- Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, DeLeon, marx himself- while the former regard thinking as a collective process, taking for granted that a good line of inquiry doesn't need a big-name theorist to validate it. This focus on intellectual property and leadership is doubtless interconnected with the notorious authoritarianism of most self-proclaimed Marxists; all the same there are some who maintain Marxism is compatible with autonomy and horizontality. But it is not simply enough for them to champion autonomy, horizontality, and the revolutionary seizure of the means of production; they still have to drop the name of the foremost authority on communism, like Christians citing the Good Book for legitimacy.

We are no more prophets than anyone else; and if we claimed to be able to give an official solution to all the problems that will arise in the course of the daily life of a future society, then what we meant by the abolition of government would be curious to say the least. For [if we did] we would be declaring ourselves the government and would be prescribing, as do the religious legislators, a universal code for present and future generations. It is just as well that not having the stake or prisons with which to impose our bible, mankind would be free to laugh at us and at our pretensions with impunity!

[ZeroNowhere]

But it is not simply enough for them to champion autonomy, horizontality, and the revolutionary seizure of the means of production; they still have to drop the name of the foremost authority on communism, like Christians citing the Good Book for legitimacy.
Your comparison doesn't apply, since we're not saying, "De Leon said it, so it's right," in the same way that I'm not going to accuse you, when quoting CrimethInc, of being like a xian and the Bible. As for changing our names, I really don't give a shit. I don't criticize Darwinism for its name, or claim that this makes it inferior to creationism, or is at all relevant, so I don't see why it's somehow relevant here.


We are no more prophets than anyone else
I am Nostradamus, do you believe?


and if we claimed to be able to give an official solution to all the problems that will arise in the course of the daily life of a future society, then what we meant by the abolition of government would be curious to say the least. For we would be declaring ourselves the government and would be prescribing, as do the religious legislators, a universal code for present and future generations.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. If one calls for anarchy, or, say, consensual democracy, one is not therefore saying, "I shall impose anarchy and consensual democracy on you through government, whether you like it or not!" If one suggests that a friend eat a beetle, one is not putting a gun to his head and proclaiming, "Eat the beetle!"

[griffjam]

We are very concerned with all the problems of social life, both in the interest of science, and because we reckon to see anarchy realized and to take part as best we can in the organization of the new society. Therefore we do have our solutions which, depending on the circumstances, appear to us either definitive or transitory- and but for space considerations we would say something on this here. But the fact that because today, with the evidence we have, we think in a certain way on a given problem does not mean that his is how it must be dealt with in the future. Who can foresee the activities which will grow when mankind is freed from poverty and oppression, when there will no longer be either slaves or masters, and when the struggle between peoples, and the hatred and bitterness that are engendered as a result, will no longer be an essential part of existence? Who can predict the progress in science and in the means of production, of communication and so on?

What is important is that a society should be brought into being in which the exploitation and domination of man by man is not possible; in which everybody has free access to the means of life, of development and of work, and that all can participate, as they wish and know how, in the organization of social life. In such a society obviously all will be done to best satisfy the needs of everybody within the framework of existing knowledge and conditions; and all will change for the better with the growth of knowledge and the means.

After all, a program which is concerned with the bases of social structure, cannot do other than suggest a method. And it is the method which above all distinguishes between the parties and determines their historical importance. Apart from the method, they all talk of wanting the well being of humanity and many really do; the parties disappear and with them all action organized and directed to a given end. Therefore one must consider anarchy above all as a method. A means without an end.

The methods from which the different non-anarchist parties expect, or say they do, the greatest good of one and all can be reduced to two, the authoritarian and the so-called liberal. The former entrusts to a few the management of social life and leads to the exploitation and oppression of the masses by the few. The latter relies of free individual enterprise and proclaims, if not the abolition, at least the reduction of governmental functions to an absolute minimum; but because it respects private property and is entirely based on the principle of each for himself and therefor of competition between men, the liberty it espouses is for the strong and for the property owners to oppress and exploit the weak, those who have nothing; and far from producing harmony, tends to increase even more the gap between rich and poor and it to leads to exploitation and domination, in other words, to authority. This second method, that is liberalism, is in theory a kind of anarchy with out socialism, and therefore is simply a lie, for freedom is not possible without equality, and real anarchy cannot exist without solidarity, without socialism. The criticism liberals direct at government consists only of wanting to deprive it of some of its functions and to call on the capitalists to fight it out among themselves, but it cannot attack the repressive functions which are of its essence: for without the police the property owner could not exist, indeed the government's powers of repression must perforce increase as free competition results in more discord and inequality.

Anarchists offer a new method: that is free initiative of all and free compact when, private property having been abolished by revolutionary action, everybody has been put in a situation of equality to dispose of social wealth. This method, by not allowing access to the reconstitution of private property, must lead, via free association, to the complete victory of the principle of solidarity.

Viewed in this way, on sees how all the problems that are advance in order to counter anarchist ideas are instead and argument in their favor, because only anarchy points the way along which they can find, by trial and error, that solution which best satisfies the dictates of science as well as the needs and wishes of everybody.

"How will children be educated?"

We don't know.

"So what will happen?"

Parents, pedagogues and all who are concerned with the future of the young generation will come together, will discuss, will agree or divide according to the views they hold, and will put into practice the methods which they think are the best. And with practice that method which in fact is the best, will in the end be adopted.

And similarly with all problems which present themselves.


It follows from what we have said so far, that anarchy, as understood by the anarchists and as only they can interpret it, is based on socialism. Indeed were it not for those schools of socialism which artificially divide the natural unity of the social question, and only consider some aspects out of context, and were it not for the misunderstandings with they seek to tangle the path to the social revolution, we could say straight out that anarchy is synonymous with socialism, for both stand for the abolition of domination and exploitation of man by man, whether they are exercised at bayonet point or by a monopoly of the means of life.

Anarchy, in common with socialism, has as its basis, its point of departure, its essential environment, equality of conditions; its beacon is solidarity and freedom is its method. It is not perfection, it is not the absolute ideal which like the horizon recedes as fast as we approach it; but its the way to open to all progress and all improvements for the benefit of everybody.

[trivas7]

The only thing is, my desires etc. should not interfere with another. That is, I should be able to do whatever I want, so long as I don't impinge the rights of other person's to do whatever they want (and vise versa).
Exactly what the (American) libertarian believes. She calls it the non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle).

[ZeroNowhere]

It follows from what we have said so far, that anarchy, as understood by the anarchists and as only they can interpret it, is based on socialism.
Anarchism is a form of socialism. Then again, define 'socialism'.

[apathy maybe]

I don't criticize Darwinism for its name, or claim that this makes it inferior to creationism, or is at all relevant, so I don't see why it's somehow relevant here.

Except that "Darwinism" is bullshit. Evolution is where it is at. What Darwin proposed has been updated and changed many times over the years, and to continue to call it Darwinism is just stupid. Heck, it isn't even evolution, it is "natural selection", a method of evolution (other methods have been proposed).


Exactly what the (American) libertarian believes. She calls it the non-aggression principle.

The non-aggression principle is just one name for the concept. It isn't limited to right-libertarians (obviously), but is shared by many (including, according to Wikipedia, various religions).

Another working of the idea is, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_equal_freedom

As well, the principle as detailed by right-libertarians, almost always includes property, something that I, for one, reject (at least, beyond what a person uses).

I don't know what your point was, but if it was to try and link me to right-libertarians, then it fails. Yes, anarchism has a lot in common with classical liberalism, and consequently right-libertarianism, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing.

[griffjam]

Exactly what the (American) libertarian believes. She calls it the non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle).

Best simplified by
"My freedom to swing my fists ends at the bridge of your nose."
or
"My freedom begins where yours ends."
Right?

Both cliches are bullshit. It should be "My freedom begins where yours begins."
Liberty is collective. One cannot be free when others are oppressed. Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all. Human beings are demonstrably social animals, who live interdependent lives and gain both utility and meaning through social networks, community, and shared projects. To be anarchists it is not enough to want the emancipation of the individual alone. We must also want the emancipation of all. It is not enough to rebel against oppression. We must refuse to be oppressors. We need to understand the bonds of solidarity, natural or desired which link humanity, to love fellow beings, suffer from others' misfortune, not feel happy if one is aware of the unhappiness of others.

However do not confuse anarchism for being against the individual. It is uncontested by anarchists that the real, concrete being, the being who has consciousness and feels, enjoys and suffers, is the individual and that Society, far from being superior to the individual, is that individual's instrument and slave; must be no more than the union of associated men and women for the greater good of all. And from this point of view it could be said that we are all individualists as well as collectivists.

[Revolutionary Youth]

Anarchism is a form of socialism. Then again, define 'socialism'.
What the heck?:confused:

[trivas7]

Liberty is collective. One cannot be free when others are oppressed. Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all. Human beings are demonstrably social animals, who live interdependent lives and gain both utility and meaning through social networks, community, and shared projects.
By this characterization freedom has never existed; it is as utopian a concept as socialism. B.F. Skinner would agree w/ you.



It is uncontested by anarchists that the real, concrete being, the being who has consciousness and feels, enjoys and suffers, is the individual and that Society, far from being superior to the individual, is that individual's instrument and slave;

Only if that individual is the Dictator.

[griffjam]

By this characterization freedom has never existed; it is as utopian a concept as socialism. B.F. Skinner would agree w/ you.

no shit, socialism (anarchism) is freedom

[griffjam]

Anarchism is a form of socialism. Then again, define 'socialism'.

Socialism is the spectacle of the misery of the workers when confronted with the affluence and luxury of the parasites and the moral revolt against patent social injustice that has driven the victims and all generous people to seek and imagine better means of living together in society. That better way consists of the destruction of all political order based on authority, and the creation of a society of free and equal members based on harmony of interests and the voluntary participation of all in carrying out social responsibilities. That is socialism.

Anarchism, socialism, and communism are interchangeable. Anarchist who were the first champions of socialism and still maintain that we are the "true" socialists in the broad and human sense of the word, ended by abandoning the term to avoid confusion with the many and various authoritarian and bourgeois deviations of socialism. Thus to we have abandoned the term 'communist' for the fear that our ideal of free human solidarity will be confused with the avaricious despotism which had for some while triumphed in Russia and which many parties, inspired by the Russian example, seek to impose worldwide. I also foresee the possibility that the social anarchists will abandon the term 'libertarian'; it is growing in ambivalence and falling into disrepute as a result of American 'libertarian' capitalism. Then perhaps we would need another adjective to distinguish us from the rest - and this could well be associationist or societist or such like, although it seems to me that simply to use the term 'anarchist' would suffice considering Ancaps only exist on the interwebs.

[griffjam]

Only if that individual is the Dictator of their own life.

Fixed

[griffjam]

A nihilist is one who has ceased to care about anything, i.e., one who carries on with “normal life” regardless of what is going on around him. Giving up hope doesn’t mean ceasing to respond to the forces acting upon one—on the contrary, doing so requires extravagant quantities of hope (see Hunger Strike, Desertion, Resistance)— but rather that one goes on responding to them without investing any of one’s actions with meaning. Alternately, “nihilist” designates a jaded malcontent who makes a pretense of wishing to destroy everything and having nothing to lose. Such pretensions typically contribute to an unsociable individualism and dismissal of collective struggle—though the project of destroying everything will demand more widespread participation than the carrying out of mere reforms, as most of that “everything” is cultural rather than physical. A misguided nihilist might retort that he wishes to destroy everyone, as well—but that’s fascism, not nihilism. Granted, there are many different kinds of nihilism—many different things one can say “are nothing,” many different nothings to believe in.

[ZeroNowhere]

Anarchism, socialism, and communism are interchangeable. Anarchist who were the first champions of socialism and still maintain that we are the "true" socialists in the broad and human sense of the word, ended by abandoning the term to avoid confusion with the many and various authoritarian and bourgeois deviations of socialism. Thus to we have abandoned the term 'communist' for the fear that our ideal of free human solidarity will be confused with the avaricious despotism which had for some while triumphed in Russia and which many parties, inspired by the Russian example, seek to impose worldwide. I also foresee the possibility that the social anarchists will abandon the term 'libertarian'; it is growing in ambivalence and falling into disrepute as a result of American 'libertarian' capitalism. Then perhaps we would need another adjective to distinguish us from the rest - and this could well be associationist or societist or such like, although it seems to me that simply to use the term 'anarchist' would suffice considering Ancaps only exist on the interwebs.
Fair enough. Though I would say that 'anarchy' is as abused a term as 'communist' or 'socialist', so 'libertarian socialist' and 'libertarian communist' should be equally effectual in disassociating oneself from authoritarians within the movement, as well as general misconceptions. It also brings up the whole, "That doesn't make sense" thing, which gives you more opportunity to expand upon your views than 'anarchism' or 'communism'.

[griffjam]

then how about maximum ultraism?:cool:

[apathy maybe]

What is socialism? Socialism is the broad set of ideologies that are opposed to capitalism, and for the control over labour by the labourer. The worker is the only one with any claim to the results of their work.

Even a nihilist should agree to that.

[trivas7]

What is socialism? Socialism is the broad set of ideologies that are opposed to capitalism, and for the control over labour by the labourer. The worker is the only one with any claim to the results of their work.

You define socialism in terms of what it is against, which tells me nothing re it is. Capitalists also believe in control of labor by the laborer. Which is exactly why they are hired.


Even a nihilist should agree to that.
Why?

[dissipate]

The irony

Nihilism is a disbelief, not a belief. For instance I am a religious nihilist by default because I do not find any truth value in religion. Likewise I am a nihilist when it comes to pink invisible elephants, as you probably are as well. When I am talking about ideologies I am talking about a positive belief in some system. See how it isn't a contradiction?

[dissipate]

What is socialism? Socialism is the broad set of ideologies that are opposed to capitalism, and for the control over labour by the labourer. The worker is the only one with any claim to the results of their work.

Even a nihilist should agree to that.

First of all I am not a nihilist in the general sense. If I was, I probably would have committed suicide long ago (the logical action of any full blown nihilist). A nihilist in the general sense does not find any value or truth in anything at all. I simply do not find any value or truth in religion or politics or political ideologies, including a whole host of other things by default. Everyone on this board is probably a nihilist when it comes to invisible pink elephants i.e. we find no truth or value in invisible pink elephants.

Second of all, you are using those word games I explicitly argued against in my original post. 'Capitalism,' 'labour,' 'worker' are all word games that have no truth or value. Does a capitalist light up in bright red while walking down the street? And if they did, what would cause them to? If they set up a lemonade stand? If they are the CEO of a bank? If they paid their friend $5 to wax their car? Does a labourer light up in some other color? And if they did what would cause it? If you laboured for a few hours on Friday? Of course not. Applying these labels cannot possibly describe reality in any way we can get a handle on because they do not manifest in any recognizable changes in reality.

[Pogue]

First of all I am not a nihilist in the general sense. If I was, I probably would have committed suicide long ago (the logical action of any full blown nihilist). A nihilist in the general sense does not find any value or truth in anything at all. I simply do not find any value or truth in religion or politics or political ideologies, including a whole host of other things by default. Everyone on this board is probably a nihilist when it comes to invisible pink elephants i.e. we find no truth or value in invisible pink elephants.

Second of all, you are using those word games I explicitly argued against in my original post. 'Capitalism,' 'labour,' 'worker' are all word games that have no truth or value. Does a capitalist light up in bright red while walking down the street? And if they did, what would cause them to? If they set up a lemonade stand? If they are the CEO of a bank? If they paid their friend $5 to wax their car? Does a labourer light up in some other color? And if they did what would cause it? If you laboured for a few hours on Friday? Of course not. Applying these labels cannot possibly describe reality in any way we can get a handle on because they do not manifest in any recognizable changes in reality.

Class relations are reality though. You sell your labour, your a worker, you exploit labour, a capitalist, a boss, whatever.

We don't deal in only concepts and terms which force people together. Its more the material realit yof being a worker - you have something to gain from socialism as a worker, and the boss will be opposed to it, so the 'names' or categories have clear meanings.

[apathy maybe]

...

What I meant even a nihilist should agree to, is that a person should have control over themselves (and consequently their own labour).

I could have made that more clear, but only the last sentence (:"The worker is the only one with any claim to the results of their work.") was what I was saying you should agree to.

But yes, I'm also in many respects a nihilist.

[Dejavu]

The worker is the only one with any claim to the results of their work.

I agree and the worker should have the right to exchange the value of his work with anyone he desires.

[Dejavu]

Its more the material realit yof being a worker - you have something to gain from socialism as a worker, and the boss will be opposed to it, so the 'names' or categories have clear meanings.

Whats this mysticism? :confused:

[dissipate]

Class relations are reality though. You sell your labour, your a worker, you exploit labour, a capitalist, a boss, whatever.

No, not whatever. The fact that you are even using the word 'whatever' exposes the lack of truth in your statements. 'Class relations' are unscientific ad hoc terms. An individual is a biological being with a particular chemical and physical properties with no underlying physical mechanism to flag them as being a part of any class.


We don't deal in only concepts and terms which force people together. Its more the material realit yof being a worker - you have something to gain from socialism as a worker, and the boss will be opposed to it, so the 'names' or categories have clear meanings.What precisely is the material reality of being a 'worker?' I see people moving around in physical reality doing things that may be considered 'work' by some. But in physical reality all they are doing is moving around. The physical universe has no underlying indicator for exactly what a particular human activity is. Labour is a term that is so abstract it has no meaning whatsoever.

Furthermore, your claim that I have something to gain from a system that has absolutely no truth value is rather absurd. And also is gain not relative to those who are to gain? Can we say objectively that I have anything to 'gain' from doing anything? Of course not because gain, not only is relative but abstracted away to meaninglessness. Your advocacy of 'socialism' is on par with witchcraft, voodoo and other ritualistic nonsense.

[Dejavu]

No, not whatever. The fact that you are even using the word 'whatever' exposes the lack of truth in your statements. 'Class relations' are unscientific ad hoc terms. An individual is a biological being with a particular chemical and physical properties with no underlying physical mechanism to flag them as being a part of any class.

Oh snap! I very much agree with this. Concepts like class, race, nation, etc are all based on idealism and not reality. Such things ought to be regarded as mysticism.

[griffjam]

You take one mind-blowing philosophy class, and all of a sudden you're Jean-Paul Sartre?

The pursuit of intrinsic or extrinsic meaning in the universe maybe a futile gesture but the pursuit itself may have meaning. Just because humans may not be able to know the meaning in the universe doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because it is not essntial for an individual to create create meaning in life doesn't make it impossible.

[Dejavu]

You take one mind-blowing philosophy class, and all of a sudden you're Jean-Paul Sartre?

The pursuit of intrinsic or extrinsic meaning in the universe maybe a futile gesture but the pursuit itself may have meaning. Just because humans may not be able to know the meaning in the universe doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because it is not essntial for an individual to create create meaning in life doesn't make it impossible.

He's saying it has no objective meaning. I don't see how there can be any real precise 'meaning' to the universe itself. Meaning is subjective.
I happen to think it is essential for individuals to create meaning in their lives because how else can you really live? Each moment you are breathing, establishing relationships , and consuming resources you are demonstrating preference of one state to another. Human life necessarily infers the creation of meaning by sentience.

He is looking at the 'meaning' of concepts themselves. He understands concepts don't actually exist in reality and are abstracted by the mind. It seems to me he is saying that concepts not based on material reality are meaningless ( such as religion and god) when compared to material reality itself. Concepts which are constructed upon the behavior of matter and energy in the material universe can be considered valid since they have an empirical grounding.

[Pogue]

No, not whatever. The fact that you are even using the word 'whatever' exposes the lack of truth in your statements. 'Class relations' are unscientific ad hoc terms. An individual is a biological being with a particular chemical and physical properties with no underlying physical mechanism to flag them as being a part of any class.

What precisely is the material reality of being a 'worker?' I see people moving around in physical reality doing things that may be considered 'work' by some. But in physical reality all they are doing is moving around. The physical universe has no underlying indicator for exactly what a particular human activity is. Labour is a term that is so abstract it has no meaning whatsoever.

Furthermore, your claim that I have something to gain from a system that has absolutely no truth value is rather absurd. And also is gain not relative to those who are to gain? Can we say objectively that I have anything to 'gain' from doing anything? Of course not because gain, not only is relative but abstracted away to meaninglessness. Your advocacy of 'socialism' is on par with witchcraft, voodoo and other ritualistic nonsense.

No its not, because its a concrete mode of social organisation and economic relations wheres voodoo and witchcraft are religious/magical beliefs and ideas in the supernatural. Theres a clear difference.

A worker is someone who sells their labour for a wage. So everyone who does that is a worker (although some people exclude the police for their particular role).

[dissipate]

No its not, because its a concrete mode of social organisation and economic relations wheres voodoo and witchcraft are religious/magical beliefs and ideas in the supernatural. Theres a clear difference.

What is a 'concrete mode of social organization?' You are still just using word games. Economic relations are meaningless as well. Your beliefs are supernatural because you are imposing labels and teleological concepts onto nature, which itself contains no such meaning. In other words, you believe that acting in a 'socialist' manner brings about a state in reality that is distinctly different from that which would be brought about by acting in a 'capitalist' manner. However, from a reductionist perspective, all such distinctions do not exist in empirical reality. Nature itself confers no objective benefits to those who act 'socialist' vs. those who act 'capitalist' and furthermore provides no scientific distinction between the two ideologies.


A worker is someone who sells their labour for a wage. So everyone who does that is a worker (although some people exclude the police for their particular role).

From a scientific perspective what is 'selling,' what is 'labour,' what are 'wages'? What is a 'worker?' These are artificial teleological concepts you have made up in your mind which are empirically nonsensical.

[Pogue]

What is a 'concrete mode of social organization?' You are still just using word games. Economic relations are meaningless as well. Your beliefs are supernatural because you are imposing labels and teleological concepts onto nature, which itself contains no such meaning. In other words, you believe that acting in a 'socialist' manner brings about a state in reality that is distinctly different from that which would be brought about by acting in a 'capitalist' manner. However, from a reductionist perspective, all such distinctions do not exist in empirical reality. Nature itself confers no objective benefits to those who act 'socialist' vs. those who act 'capitalist' and furthermore provides no scientific distinction between the two ideologies.



From a scientific perspective what is 'selling,' what is 'labour,' what are 'wages'? What is a 'worker?' These are artificial teleological concepts you have made up in your mind which are empirically nonsensical.

Why do you refer to any political terms I use as me 'playing word games'? Thats not part of the definition. I'm using descriptive terms, not playing any games.

How could nature divide between ideologies? Ideologies came about millenia after nature. They're human constructs, ideas about how society and the economy should be run.

Of course a socialist society is a different state in reality than a capitalist society. Its a huge political and eocomic change. The reality of the region and peoples affected would be affected also.

I'd forward that you've discovered a personal philosophical pet theory and you're now trying to use it to attack our political beliefs. Its not working, because your arguments and philosophy in this thread have made no sense whatsoever.

[Pogue]

From a scientific perspective what is 'selling,' what is 'labour,' what are 'wages'? What is a 'worker?' These are artificial teleological concepts you have made up in your mind which are empirically nonsensical.


A quick google definition search would clear those up, but for your personal benefit

Selling - the process of exchanging something you posess (skill or object) for some form of currency. Selling your labour (manpower, knowledge, etc) for a wage.

Wage - money given in return for manpower, often on a weekly or monthly basis.

Labour - ones work and effort.

You're going to have to try a bit harder than simply saying the words I use don't make sense, which is basically what you've done so far.

[BobKKKindle$]

The basic idea which lies at the core of the OP's outlook is that there is no such thing as objective truth, both in terms of what words mean, and how they relate to the external world, and, on a much more fundamental level, whether we can be sure that our sensory experiences correspond to the world as it really exists, given that we have no other way of experiencing the world around us except through our senses. If I take the second component of this outlook to its logical conclusion, then we reach some interesting conclusions. If we assume that our senses are generally accurate in the way they convey the world to us, we still know that there are many occasions when our senses are inaccurate, such as when we are under the influence of certain drugs, or when we have not slept for a long time. Given this, what reason do I have to assume that my senses are ever accurate? It is entirely possible that I do not exist in the form of a human body but am simply a brain floating in a vat of fluid, perhaps as part of an experiment organized by an evil philosopher who wants to investigate the nature of reality and human consciousness, with my brain receiving electronic signals to generate certain sensory experiences. If we adopt this perspective, then the people I think I talk to and interact with on a daily basis - including the people on this forum - do not even exist. It could even be possible that I am the only person in the entire world, if I am not being used as part of a philosophical experiment, but am permanently hallucinating for some other reason - perhaps this is my natural state? This conclusion - that the only thing we know exists is our own mind - is otherwise known as a solipsism. I dare anyone on this forum to disprove any of these points. If the OP is a consistent nihilist in the full sense, they will reject the notion that there are certainly other people in the world - even if they do not positively believe that they are the only person.

So, OP, do I exist?

Incidentally, having read the OP's post, it is totally dishonest to be a "political nihilist" and not any other kind of nihilist. If words lack independent and objective meaning, and if all ideologies lack truth value, then what makes you think with so much certainty that the world we experience through our senses is real?

[BobKKKindle$]

Continuing from the above, it's ironic that, as someone who sees herself as a political nihilist, the OP's own arguments contain hidden ideological beliefs. Let's have a look at the following in particular:

"In terms of my own outlook and behavior, all I really know is that I have preferences and desires, and I seek means to attain that which I prefer/desire"

By noting the role of "preferences and desires", the OP has drawn attention to the fact that there are certain things which make us happier than others, and there are also things which can make us feel sad or endure pain, and humans generally pursue activities and experiences which belong to the former category - things which make us happy. There are, of course, different ways to define the concept of happiness, and arguably, in addition to having different preferences, each individual understands happiness in her own way - but we can put this aside for the time being. Having made these initial judgments, the OP then goes on to point out that they seek to attain means by which they can enjoy their preferences. It is obvious that, for the OP, it is desirable for them as an individual and humans in general to be happy. This is an ideological belief because it is concerned with what is desirable for humans to do, but it is not the only ideological belief the OP seems to hold without being aware of it. By stressing the importance of means, the OP is revealing that being able to pursue our preferences involves us being able to make our own decisions and judgments instead of being forced to accept the decisions of someone else, or an institution with the ability to exercise coercion such as the state. They are, in effect, implicitly agreeing with Bentham's perspective on individual freedom. I could go on, and talk about the role of current economic circumstances in limiting the availability of means, but from the above it is clear that the OP's worldview is ideological, whether they like it or not.

[dissipate]

Why do you refer to any political terms I use as me 'playing word games'? Thats not part of the definition. I'm using descriptive terms, not playing any games.

But your descriptions lack scientific rigor. For instance, I cannot build a machine that can mechanically and accurately describe the behavior and 'classes' you are trying to describe. Do you understand that without some independent verifiable mechanism you cannot come to any objective descriptions of reality?

Now if you want to create your own internal reality with all the teleological fluff to go with it, that is fine, but don't think for a second that this internal system contains any truth value outside of your personal mental masturbation.


How could nature divide between ideologies? Ideologies came about millenia after nature. They're human constructs, ideas about how society and the economy should be run.Right, hence, they are supernatural. What am I missing here? This is exactly what I said before.


Of course a socialist society is a different state in reality than a capitalist society. Its a huge political and eocomic change. The reality of the region and peoples affected would be affected also.Politics is exactly the 'system' I am saying has no truth content. Saying some place has gone through 'political' change is like saying some place just had a stampede of invisible elephants trample through. If you cannot fundamentally understand this concept, then I am afraid we cannot have any debate over this matter.

If people believe in politics, and act accordingly, then yes, their reality does change. But what I am saying is that this is primitive behavior because there is no truth foundation for it. It is nonsense masquerading as 'truth.' It is no different than rain dances, or other primitive rituals designed to alter reality in an objective teleological way. You see all kinds of examples of this in religion, with prayer, chants, ceremonies and religious holidays. Believing in Christianity and changing your thought processes/behavior accordingly is simply a manifestation of nonsensical beliefs.

Likewise there is no universally verifiable method of determining whether or not someone is behaving according to the doctrines of 'socialism.' Therefore, 'socialism' is not a science, or any description of reality whatsoever. It is in the same category of religious narratives.


I'd forward that you've discovered a personal philosophical pet theory and you're now trying to use it to attack our political beliefs. Its not working, because your arguments and philosophy in this thread have made no sense whatsoever.I do not mean to attack anything. I am merely exposing the fact that ideologies are not real, and do not describe anything real. When a religious person tells me that because I am an atheist (a religious nihilist) I must hate god, I reply that I do not because god is simply an imaginary concept, which cannot be 'hated,' 'loved' or anything else.

[Pogue]

But your descriptions lack scientific rigor. For instance, I cannot build a machine that can mechanically and accurately describe the behavior and 'classes' you are trying to describe. Do you understand that without some independent verifiable mechanism you cannot come to any objective descriptions of reality?

Now if you want to create your own internal reality with all the teleological fluff to go with it, that is fine, but don't think for a second that this internal system contains any truth value outside of your personal mental masturbation.

Right, hence, they are supernatural. What am I missing here? This is exactly what I said before.

Politics is exactly the 'system' I am saying has no truth content. Saying some place has gone through 'political' change is like saying some place just had a stampede of invisible elephants trample through. If you cannot fundamentally understand this concept, then I am afraid we cannot have any debate over this matter.

If people believe in politics, and act accordingly, then yes, their reality does change. But what I am saying is that this is primitive behavior because there is no truth foundation for it. It is nonsense masquerading as 'truth.' It is no different than rain dances, or other primitive rituals designed to alter reality in an objective teleological way. You see all kinds of examples of this in religion, with prayer, chants, ceremonies and religious holidays. Believing in Christianity and changing your thought processes/behavior accordingly is simply a manifestation of nonsensical beliefs.

Likewise there is no universally verifiable method of determining whether or not someone is behaving according to the doctrines of 'socialism.' Therefore, 'socialism' is not a science, or any description of reality whatsoever. It is in the same category of religious narratives.

I do not mean to attack anything. I am merely exposing the fact that ideologies are not real, and do not describe anything real. When a religious person tells me that because I am an atheist (a religious nihilist) I must hate god, I reply that I do not because god is simply an imaginary concept, which cannot be 'hated,' 'loved' or anything else.

Emphasis mine. I don't deal in supernatural ideas, and its certainly not in my head. Poverty and class struggle are evident everywhere, thats why I'm active in left wing politics. Any philosophical ramblings (be it this pseudo-philosophy your obsessed with) or the Randroid style rationalism can't deny this fact.

Trying to disprove the existence an thesis and practice of a socio-economic system is stupid, and goes down that dead-end path of the sceptic. If you put 'socialism' down to amere imaginary concept you could do it with anything.

[dissipate]

A quick google definition search would clear those up, but for your personal benefit

Selling - the process of exchanging something you posess (skill or object) for some form of currency. Selling your labour (manpower, knowledge, etc) for a wage.

Wage - money given in return for manpower, often on a weekly or monthly basis.

Labour - ones work and effort.

You're going to have to try a bit harder than simply saying the words I use don't make sense, which is basically what you've done so far.

Sure, there are definitions of words in dictionaries that people use in loose and informal ways. These words are unscientific in nature, and therefore could never be the foundation for a belief that claims to objectively describe reality.

If I tell my friend that I am going to labour at the factory, this is an informal and unscientific statement. It gives him a general idea about the kind of activity I will be engaging in for a certain number of hours in the future, but that is about it. Therefore, my statement cannot objectively and fundamentally be used to describe reality on the level that ideologies require. Ideologies claim objective truth about reality based on definitions that can only informally and unscientifically describe reality.

Your argument is: I do see 'poor' people. My argument is, no you see people, and this label of 'poor' is an ad hoc subjective description of them. And why is this? Because 'wealth' cannot be defined scientifically, and if 'wealth' can't be described scientifically, then there is no way to describe poor scientifically either. 'Wealth' is an abstraction that can only mean something in an informal internally subjective sense.

[dissipate]

Emphasis mine. I don't deal in supernatural ideas, and its certainly not in my head. Poverty and class struggle are evident everywhere, thats why I'm active in left wing politics. Any philosophical ramblings (be it this pseudo-philosophy your obsessed with) or the Randroid style rationalism can't deny this fact.

Do you understand the fallacy you are committing here?

I am explaining why X is wrong.

Then you are saying that I am wrong because of X.

You are using the concepts in question to make your arguments, without independently verifying the concepts.

It is like this:

I say: invisible pink elephants do not exist.

You say: because of these invisible pink elephants....


Trying to disprove the existence an thesis and practice of a socio-economic system is stupid, and goes down that dead-end path of the sceptic.Qualify this statement and provide evidence/support. Simply stating it does not make it true.


If you put 'socialism' down to amere imaginary concept you could do it with anything.Again, explain how this is the case. Socialism is based on idealistic and teleological concepts, making objective claims using terminology that is entirely subjective and arbitrary. Not all descriptions of reality do this, however. Physics is a mathematical system that fairly accurately describes the interactions of particles in the universe.

[dissipate]

The basic idea which lies at the core of the OP's outlook is that there is no such thing as objective truth, both in terms of what words mean, and how they relate to the external world, and, on a much more fundamental level, whether we can be sure that our sensory experiences correspond to the world as it really exists, given that we have no other way of experiencing the world around us except through our senses.

There is objective truth found in science, but that is about the only place you will find it. And I do trust my senses, if for no other reason than by default. Furthermore, I even enjoy subjective interpretations of reality. When I tell my friends: "I think that girl is really hot." and we talk about my subjective interpretation of reality, this is something I can enjoy. But I certainly do not make the mistake of turning any of these subjective interpretations into some kind of universal principle.


If I take the second component of this outlook to its logical conclusion, then we reach some interesting conclusions. If we assume that our senses are generally accurate in the way they convey the world to us, we still know that there are many occasions when our senses are inaccurate, such as when we are under the influence of certain drugs, or when we have not slept for a long time. Given this, what reason do I have to assume that my senses are ever accurate? It is entirely possible that I do not exist in the form of a human body but am simply a brain floating in a vat of fluid, perhaps as part of an experiment organized by an evil philosopher who wants to investigate the nature of reality and human consciousness, with my brain receiving electronic signals to generate certain sensory experiences. If we adopt this perspective, then the people I think I talk to and interact with on a daily basis - including the people on this forum - do not even exist. It could even be possible that I am the only person in the entire world, if I am not being used as part of a philosophical experiment, but am permanently hallucinating for some other reason - perhaps this is my natural state? This conclusion - that the only thing we know exists is our own mind - is otherwise known as a solipsism. I dare anyone on this forum to disprove any of these points. If the OP is a consistent nihilist in the full sense, they will reject the notion that there are certainly other people in the world - even if they do not positively believe that they are the only person. I said previously I am not a nihilist in a general sense, and nor am I a solipsist. Solipsism as a thesis fails on empirical grounds and is currently an entirely untestable theory, in addition to the idea that the world is an illusion and being generated by an evil demon. While these ideas cannot be proven wrong, they are by default outside the category of what could be called knowledge. In a similar way, god is in the same category: cannot be proven wrong, but certainly is a concept that nothing could be known about.


So, OP, do I exist?From a scientific perspective, yes. From a more philosophical/broader perspective, existence itself is quite mysterious, and open to interpretation/debate.


Incidentally, having read the OP's post, it is totally dishonest to be a "political nihilist" and not any other kind of nihilist. If words lack independent and objective meaning, and if all ideologies lack truth value, then what makes you think with so much certainty that the world we experience through our senses is real?Words that are based on informal definitions that loosely describe reality cannot be used to draw objective conclusions. This is really the only point that I am trying to make. Your senses and words that describe reality are two entirely different categories. Your senses are produced from physical phenomenon, essentially particles interacting with each other in a particular way. Empirical knowledge of reality can be acquired from this strictly physical interaction, which has nothing to do with words. Small children acquire empirical knowledge about reality from their sensory input long before they learn any words.

[dissipate]

Continuing from the above, it's ironic that, as someone who sees herself as a political nihilist, the OP's own arguments contain hidden ideological beliefs. Let's have a look at the following in particular:

"In terms of my own outlook and behavior, all I really know is that I have preferences and desires, and I seek means to attain that which I prefer/desire"

By noting the role of "preferences and desires", the OP has drawn attention to the fact that there are certain things which make us happier than others, and there are also things which can make us feel sad or endure pain, and humans generally pursue activities and experiences which belong to the former category - things which make us happy. There are, of course, different ways to define the concept of happiness, and arguably, in addition to having different preferences, each individual understands happiness in her own way - but we can put this aside for the time being. Having made these initial judgments, the OP then goes on to point out that they seek to attain means by which they can enjoy their preferences. It is obvious that, for the OP, it is desirable for them as an individual and humans in general to be happy. This is an ideological belief because it is concerned with what is desirable for humans to do, but it is not the only ideological belief the OP seems to hold without being aware of it. By stressing the importance of means, the OP is revealing that being able to pursue our preferences involves us being able to make our own decisions and judgments instead of being forced to accept the decisions of someone else, or an institution with the ability to exercise coercion such as the state. They are, in effect, implicitly agreeing with Bentham's perspective on individual freedom. I could go on, and talk about the role of current economic circumstances in limiting the availability of means, but from the above it is clear that the OP's worldview is ideological, whether they like it or not.

The fact that I have preferences in no way implies that I have an ideology. I prefer certain environments over others, certain actions and certain food etc. However, I claim absolutely nothing objective about these preferences. When others choose to override my desires, it helps to know why they are doing that. When they tell me it is out of 'fairness' or 'social welfare' or other intellectually bankrupt concepts, then that is when I object. I object in the same way that I would object to someone putting food in front of me that I disliked and forcing me to eat it.

It is much much easier for me to understand why a robber would mug me than it is for me to understand why a politician demands something from me. A robber wishes to get some means to an end (i.e. liquor, or cigarettes, or some electronic equipment). When a politician says it is out of 'fairness' or 'justice' I am quite baffled, because in reality I have not seen any evidence of these things existing. In other words, I do not see 'fairness' and 'justice' as ends that exist in empirical reality. They might as well say that they are trying to appease the god Thor or invisible gnomes. No matter how much I put my mind to trying to understand 'fairness' or 'justice' I utterly fail.

In a similar way, I scoff at shady preachers begging for my cash based on principles surrounding the concept of 'god.' 'god' is another concept that has absolutely no real meaning to me. Therefore, anything based on the concept of god I find to be silly and I prefer to avoid it.

You are equating lack of ideology with ideology, which is patently absurd.

[Revolutionary Youth]

I am a political nihilist. This means that that I have a complete disbelief in all that is ideological (i.e. any positive belief system that ends with "ist", "ism" or "ian").
Uhm, does nihilist end with "ist"?

[BobKKKindle$]

There is objective truth found in science

What is science, exactly, and why do you assume that science (whatever it means) can yield objective truth when other modes of analysis are, according to you, incapable of doing so? There are some post-modernists who would argue that the scientific method is just as useful in terms of how it allows us to know about and appreciate the external world as a set of supernatural beliefs, or any other way of viewing the world, and this same argument can be applied to empiricism in general. Who can objectively and certainly say that believing the earth moves round the sun due to the forces of gravity and the laws of planetary motion is more true than believing that the earth lies at the center of the universe due to the intervention of a divine being? If one is more true, or if one is true and the other is completely false, why should this be the case?

[benhur]

Who can objectively and certainly say that believing the earth moves round the sun due to the forces of gravity and the laws of planetary motion is more true than believing that the earth lies at the center of the universe due to the intervention of a divine being?

I always knew you had a thing for fairy tales.;) Seriously, though, there's evidence for the former, it can be objectively verified, whereas your fairy tale notion of a divine being can't be. Hence, we believe in science because it makes the least number of assumptions and relies more on facts.

[BobKKKindle$]

I always knew you had a thing for fairy tales

I obviously don't believe anything I've written in this thread - I'm trying to expose the problems of a totally skeptical philosophy. When you speak of one theory having evidence, what that means is that scientists have viewed the external world with scientific instruments and controlled experiments, and have formulated their explanations of how the world functions on the basis of their findings. This is problematic, because how do we know that the evidence itself is objective, and even assuming it is, how do we know that we have drawn the right conclusions from the evidence? Is it not possible that god makes the liquid in a thermometer rise to the little mark which indicates one hundred degrees at the same time as when he decides that the water should start to boil, with thermodynamics having nothing to do with it? Why do we explain boiling in terms of energy and molecules when any other explanation could also apply?

[dissipate]

Uhm, does nihilist end with "ist"?

Nihilism is not a positive belief system. It is in fact the absence of such a system.

[trivas7]

Nihilism is not a positive belief system. It is in fact the absence of such a system.
Yes, and the atheist doesn't believe in god. As if this tells me anything significant re you. :rolleyes:

[dissipate]

What is science, exactly, and why do you assume that science (whatever it means) can yield objective truth when other modes of analysis are, according to you, incapable of doing so? There are some post-modernists who would argue that the scientific method is just as useful in terms of how it allows us to know about and appreciate the external world as a set of supernatural beliefs, or any other way of viewing the world, and this same argument can be applied to empiricism in general. Who can objectively and certainly say that believing the earth moves round the sun due to the forces of gravity and the laws of planetary motion is more true than believing that the earth lies at the center of the universe due to the intervention of a divine being? If one is more true, or if one is true and the other is completely false, why should this be the case?

Post-modernism is a bullshit philosophy that could be used to justify any belief, and actually refutes itself. If post-modernism is true, then the anti-thesis of post-modernism is also true, arriving at a contradiction.Science is a discipline in which experimental results are reproducible under correct conditions. Your computer is the result of science, your cell phone, TV etc.If science did not have truth value, we would not be having this conversation, and our doubt regarding everyday activities would reach the level of insanity.

My point earlier is that socialism can never be scientific because it is impossible to build a 'capitalist' detector, because 'capitalism' is an internally subjective mental construct. The universe itself has absolutely no notion of 'capitalism' or 'socialism' or economic 'exploitation.' Refuting socialism and ideologies in general does not lead to radical doubt, and certainly not to post-modernism, a junk philosophy.

[Hokuto]

First of all I am not a nihilist in the general sense. If I was, I probably would have committed suicide long ago (the logical action of any full blown nihilist). A nihilist in the general sense does not find any value or truth in anything at all. I simply do not find any value or truth in religion or politics or political ideologies, including a whole host of other things by default.

"A nihilist in the general sense does not find any value or truth in anything at all."

this is incorrect. and your assumption that the logical action of a full blown nihilist is to commit suicide is childish.

you basically equate nihilism with what popular culture e.g. punk has defined it as. i.e. useless destructiveness.

it does not matter what somebody who calls themselves a nihilist does, the definition wont change.

you can be a fool and add by extension nihilists are destructive and useless and see no value in anything, but thats just stupid and its what most dumb people do.

[griffjam]

A nihilist is one who has ceased to care about anything, i.e., one who carries on with “normal life” regardless of what is going on around him. Giving up hope doesn’t mean ceasing to respond to the forces acting upon one—on the contrary, doing so requires extravagant quantities of hope (see Hunger Strike, Desertion, Resistance)— but rather that one goes on responding to them without investing any of one’s actions with meaning. Alternately, “nihilist” designates a jaded malcontent who makes a pretense of wishing to destroy everything and having nothing to lose. Such pretensions typically contribute to an unsociable individualism and dismissal of collective struggle—though the project of destroying everything will demand more widespread participation than the carrying out of mere reforms, as most of that “everything” is cultural rather than physical. A misguided nihilist might retort that he wishes to destroy everyone, as well—but that’s fascism, not nihilism. Granted, there are many different kinds of nihilism—many different things one can say “are nothing,” many different nothings to believe in. :drool:

[RGacky3]

I find it Ironic in a way, that people have a name and ideology for essencially not giving a crap, or make a firm desicion to not be conformist or whatever. They will write books, about how they don't believe in anything, which is wierd to me.

Ultimately there are no true nihilists, people who truely don't believe in anything. Most people I've mett who are 'nihilists' do have value systems and do follow a moral code.


My point earlier is that socialism can never be scientific because it is impossible to build a 'capitalist' detector, because 'capitalism' is an internally subjective mental construct. The universe itself has absolutely no notion of 'capitalism' or 'socialism' or economic 'exploitation.'

This type of BS philosophy does'nt work, it goes back to the whole Plato's Universals problem. Of coarse Capitalism does'nt exist, because Capitalism is'nt a word describing a 'thing', its a description of human relations. Sure the universe has no notion of that stuff, because the Universe does'nt make language, or human relations, its a human thing, plus since when did something have to be 'validated' by the universes to be relevent. Your compleatly distorting the use of language.

The idea of Objective and Subgective can never be 100% accurate with language, for example you could say rabbits don't exist objectively, objectively its just a collection of cells and parts that we call a rabbit, the idea of rabbit is just subjective, the universe does'nt know what rabbits are. But the thing we call a Rabbit does exist, the matter is there.

Your making the mistake of thinking that the role language is to express absolute objective truth, its not, its just a way to organize our lives and communicate. Everything is ultimately both subjective and objective. Capitalism is just a word describing a situation.

[Hokuto]

I find it Ironic in a way, that people have a name and ideology for essencially not giving a crap, or make a firm desicion to not be conformist or whatever. They will write books, about how they don't believe in anything, which is wierd to me.

Ultimately there are no true nihilists, people who truely don't believe in anything. Most people I've mett who are 'nihilists' do have value systems and do follow a moral code.


well nihilism isnt "people that dont believe in anything"

this is from wiki, use wiki:

"
Nihilism (from the nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position that argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.
"

im a nihilist, this does not mean i have a gg allin worldview, but rather, on a pragmatic level it guides me with my priorities. exposes modern life as a sham, really.

[Plagueround]

This type of BS philosophy does'nt work, it goes back to the whole Plato's Universals problem. Of coarse Capitalism does'nt exist, because Capitalism is'nt a word describing a 'thing', its a description of human relations. Sure the universe has no notion of that stuff, because the Universe does'nt make language, or human relations, its a human thing, plus since when did something have to be 'validated' by the universes to be relevent. Your compleatly distorting the use of language.

The idea of Objective and Subgective can never be 100% accurate with language, for example you could say rabbits don't exist objectively, objectively its just a collection of cells and parts that we call a rabbit, the idea of rabbit is just subjective, the universe does'nt know what rabbits are. But the thing we call a Rabbit does exist, the matter is there.

Your making the mistake of thinking that the role language is to express absolute objective truth, its not, its just a way to organize our lives and communicate. Everything is ultimately both subjective and objective. Capitalism is just a word describing a situation.

Gacky nailed it. Might as well close the thread. :cool:

[dissipate]

I find it Ironic in a way, that people have a name and ideology for essencially not giving a crap, or make a firm desicion to not be conformist or whatever. They will write books, about how they don't believe in anything, which is wierd to me.

Ultimately there are no true nihilists, people who truely don't believe in anything. Most people I've mett who are 'nihilists' do have value systems and do follow a moral code.



This type of BS philosophy does'nt work, it goes back to the whole Plato's Universals problem. Of coarse Capitalism does'nt exist, because Capitalism is'nt a word describing a 'thing', its a description of human relations. Sure the universe has no notion of that stuff, because the Universe does'nt make language, or human relations, its a human thing, plus since when did something have to be 'validated' by the universes to be relevent. Your compleatly distorting the use of language.

How do you derive universal and objective principles (an ideology) from a 'human thing?' What is relevant? Relevance is relative.


The idea of Objective and Subgective can never be 100% accurate with language, for example you could say rabbits don't exist objectively, objectively its just a collection of cells and parts that we call a rabbit, the idea of rabbit is just subjective, the universe does'nt know what rabbits are. But the thing we call a Rabbit does exist, the matter is there.

Your making the mistake of thinking that the role language is to express absolute objective truth, its not, its just a way to organize our lives and communicate. Everything is ultimately both subjective and objective. Capitalism is just a word describing a situation.A situation consisting of humans with subjectively categorized interactions. I still do not see how you can derive objective and universal principles (an ideology) from that.

[RGacky3]

What is relevant? Relevance is relative.


Yeah, so why is the 'universe' the judge of that in your eyes? Relevent to us, is what us as humans worry and care about, as individuals and in general.


How do you derive universal and objective principles (an ideology) from a 'human thing?'

I did'nt say that you do derive them, what I am saying is the objective/subjective distinction is flawed. We all have principles that we stick by, these pricniples are niether compleatly subjective or objective. They are subjective in the sense that we make them for ourselves, they are objective in the sense that we put them above utility. Now you can argue till your blue in the face why we have those, or where they come from, everyone has different ideas, but you cannot argue that they don't exist, because its clear they do.


A situation consisting of humans with subjectively categorized interactions. I still do not see how you can derive objective and universal principles (an ideology) from that.

See above.

Ultimately like i said when it comes to philosophy the subjective/objective distinction is flawed, see my rabbit example. Nihilism takes the true idea that there is nothing that we percieve that is 100% objective and turns that into the idea that there are no ethics, no truth, no valvue nothing, however the truth is, everything, including those things are both objective and subjective, even science is objective and subjective.

Mammals is a subjective distinction, the only thing those animals have in common is the properties we subjectively choose, however, those properties do exist objectively, but the connection we make with those properties is subjective.
I can go on and on with examples.

[Dejavu]

They are subjective in the sense that we make them for ourselves, they are objective in the sense that we put them above utility.Um...what? I never quite hard this definition for objectivity. Can you explain exactly what that means : objective = putting something above utility? Is utility some fixed value to objectively measure objectivity from?



Now you can argue till your blue in the face why we have those, or where they come from, everyone has different ideas, but you cannot argue that they don't exist, because its clear they do.I think he means principles and ideologies do not exist in material reality which is correct.


Nihilism takes the true idea that there is nothing that we percieve that is 100% objectiveI don't think that is nihilism. That sounds more like PoMo ( Postmodernism). Of course, PoMo would pretty much reject all objectivity. I don't think any philosophy or science claims 100% objectivity since there is always room for era and the unknown ( i.e. we don't have all knowledge). But that does not automatically mean that the rest is grounded in subjectivity.



Mammals is a subjective distinction, the only thing those animals have in common is the properties we subjectively choose, however, those properties do exist objectively, but the connection we make with those properties is subjective.
I can go on and on with examples. This sounds kind of nebulous but I do see the point you are attempting to make.
By the same token we would not really call math subjective. I mean sure, we make up numbers and symbols for numbers and even symbols for addition , subtraction, etc. However, the mechanics of maths is consistent and can be objectified. It does not mean that math itself is subjective just because we make up symbols depicting values to better comprehend it. Same thing with biology. We are making classifications based on observations derived from reality ( not hobbits in Middle Earth). The mechanics of science ( scientific method) is an objective methodology even though we ourselves quantify values in other to better understand it.

[RGacky3]

Um...what? I never quite hard this definition for objectivity. Can you explain exactly what that means : objective = putting something above utility? Is utility some fixed value to objectively measure objectivity from?

In the sense that we treat it as something objective, not nessesarily that it IS objective. What I mean by that is humans will do things that seam to suggest that there is some objectivity behind it.

They will not kill someone to live more comfortably (in general) even if there are no negative consequences, most will opt to have both be able to live less comfortably. The reason for this is humans have put a value on life, and have a moral code that, although subjective, they treat it as if it was an objective truth.

Maybe I'm misusing the term objective here, if I am though, then so are nihilists who claim the lack of objectivity defeats morals.


I think he means principles and ideologies do not exist in material reality which is correct.

I don't think anyone thinks otherwise.


We are making classifications based on observations derived from reality ( not hobbits in Middle Earth). The mechanics of science ( scientific method) is an objective methodology even though we ourselves quantify values in other to better understand it.

I agree, but those classifications are not real, they are only based on what is real. My point here is that subjectivity and objectivity are not mutually exclusive.

About your math example, again, numbers do not exist in real life, only things do, 2 of something only exists because we consider those 2 seperate things to share certain qualities in common and we calssify them as the same type of thing, so in a sense, math, is niether subjective or objective, because math is useless unless it is applied to something, its like language, words are useless unless they are pointing to something or expressing something. 1 + 1 will always equal 2, but that is just by definition, those numbers are not actual things.