Be Nihilistic [Archive]

perception

14th April 2004, 17:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 05:43 AM
How can you be a nihilist and still reckon communism/anarchism will work?
here's one of my attempts to reconcile Nietzche and Marx:

Revolutionary Nihilism

Everything about human society is invented. Our societies, our institutions, our cultures, our social environments, even our values and mores were created from nothingness and shaped into our reality, and it was in this fabricated environment that man was placed and forced to evolve, in a manner which would insure his survival and adaptation to the system in which he exists.

It logically follows that we are therefore free to create our own alternative reality, to construct our own institutions, our own societies, based on a different set of values. We have limitless possibilities for constructing an environment for man to exist in, but the first step is to tear down the old environment - and to do this, we must deconstruct the values, the principles on which the old environment was founded. But to get to the values, we must first destroy the institutions, the structures, the very society which has grown from these values; only then can we replace these values with our own and give birth to a new society.

Are we responsible for our own situations? Nietzche wrote, in The Geneology of Morals, that the weak have no one to blame but themselves for their condition, that they are constantly trying to convince the strong that it is wrong, or immoral, or somehow corrupt to be strong, to be powerful. This is not untrue, however harsh it sounds. The time has come for the dispossessed to stop blaming the powerful for the conditions in which they find themselves. Power lies in the hands of those who were shrewd enough to seize it when they had the opportunity. If we want power, we must take it ourselves. We cannot blame our oppressors for oppressing us, we must blame ourselves for allowing them to oppress us; we must blame ourselves for our own helplessness. Nobody blames the wolf for being a wolf; nor would anybody think it reasonable for the sheep to simply wait for the wolf to develop a conscience and stop devouring them. The wolves will not gain a conscience. They will acquiesce only enough to keep us complacent, because they fear the day when we have nothing to lose but our chains. Our goal is not to become wolves ourselves, but to wipe the wolves from the face of the earth, and any memories of the society they created, based on a culture of servitude, from the collective human consciousness. But to do this, it seems necessary that we adopt the tactics of the oppressor. We must fight fire with fire.

The Feral Underclass

14th April 2004, 18:42

Everyone

you must fill the void by taking on the task of God and inventing your own morals, deciding for yourself what is right and wrong, and beyond that, what the purpose of life really is.you must fill the void by taking on the task of God and inventing your own morals, deciding for yourself what is right and wrong, and beyond that, what the purpose of life really is.

Nothing is right or wrong and there is no point to life, only subjective interpretations.

it's not something you should embrace as your life's philosophy.

Why? Why should you not embrace it as a way to live your life. It is no less correct that any other way.

so you're saying that people should just have a good time and stuff in order to be happy

No, I am saying people should reject anything which makes them unhappy. Regardless of what it is. If you are not happy working, then dont. If you are not happy being married, dont be. If you are unhappy wearing clothes, then dont wear them. If you are unhappy with not being able to drink 24 hours a day then dont not drink 24 hours a day. If your not happy with paying your rent, dont pay it. Things that make you unhappy restrict your time. And time is not something we have. If you are unhappy with your life from doing something like working, then you are wasting your time and you should not do it. If believing being healthy is making you unhappy, dont do it. People dont eat chocolate because it makes them fat. What a waste of life, to restrict yourself in persuit of what? A good figure? Who cares, you'll be dead soon, and you will never have experienced chocolate...

all while understanding that life is pointless and stuff?

Life is pointless, but only in the sense that nothing you can do can be anything or mean anything. All you are is yourself, and all your actions outside of yourself are relevant to you only while you are alive. You die at the end of living and cease to acknowledge anything, therefore doing something has no point, because you wont be conscious of it. I suppose the only point to your life is death. This shouldnt be seen as pessimism. Simply as a fact.

So what if I go all out and then I ruin my life cus I became addicted to crack .

How can you ruin something which you have no idea about. How can you understand what life is until you have lived it. You can not ruin something you havent experienced yet.

Being a crack addict is ruining your life, its simply an experience which you can choose to want or choose to not have. Nothing can restrict you unless you yourself choose it to restrict you. You can choose to be addicted to drugs or you can choose not to be. It's simply a series of moments, experiences which you can accept or disregard based on what you choose.

I wouldn't be so happy anymore now.

How do you know until you have experienced it.

How can you be a nihilist and still reckon communism/anarchism will work?

You can not say anarchism will definatly work and therefore you can not "reckon" anything about it in the first place. You can only hope, and even hoping is self defeating.

Self indulgence will not make you happy

How much of that statement is due to social conditioning. Many people experience self indulgence but do not continue in it, not because the act of hedonism makes them unhappy, but because society conditions you to believe that you must achieve "self fufillment, helping others, being remembered for doing selfless things.. Quality of life." What do any of those things actually mean. What makes them any more important than being self indulgent?

you are happier when your healthy

Why? What does it mean to be healthy. Should we choose healthy body over healthy mind? I feel healthy when I am drunk, or high, debating politics with my soul mates. Should I reject those things which make my mind healthy because the damage my body? Why is one more important than the other? Because society tells us it is?

Nihilism is a cop out

Only if you percieve it to be. I am simply highlighting the absurdness of existence.

How can helping fellow people be a waste of time? If you were starving or dependent on somebody and that person decided just to say "I don't have to help you, we all die someday", then that's a severe injury to humanity and the good of man.

What is humanity? "Severe injury" is an abstract sentence which means nothing. How did you develop your sense of morality to be superior to another? I am not saying you are wrong, but why should I "...be happier if I drown to save a passerby who has fallen into a river than if I watched him drown"

We may not all want to help people, but it's the compassion and sense of humanity in leftists that make the world a world for the future.

If you and a stranger where being held at gun point and the gun man said "one of you will die" would you say "kill me to save that mans life."

Surely your advocating a 'belief' of some kind here so you're not ignoring beliefs in general.

I suppose you have to define beliefs. If you say that rejecting everything in the persuit of self happiness is a belief, then I suppose your right.

I'm also sure if you ignore your rent you'll probably just end up homeless.

Human co-operation goes along way. I have a friend who spent many years in the Amsterdam squatters movement. There are also squatters groups in england and also groups of people who have set up communities by themselves. Ignoring your rent will only make you homeless if you allow it to.

canikickit

14th April 2004, 20:17

People dont eat chocolate because it makes them fat. What a waste of life, to restrict yourself in persuit of what? A good figure? Who cares, you'll be dead soon, and you will never have experienced chocolate...

Some people like having a good figure better than the taste of chocolate.
Sometimes you have to pay rent in order to be happy, even if you don't like the paying rent part. You may still need your home to do the other things which do make you happy.

You cannot reject everything which makes you unhappy, because some things you go through lead to happiness.

therefore doing something has no point, because you wont be conscious of it.

Depends on the something. Many things you do do in life you will be conscious of...even the things which you will not necessarily see repercussions from can have an effect on your consciousness, if you believe they will affect others.

You can choose to be addicted to drugs or you can choose not to be.

No you cannot. Your body can become physically addicted to plenty of things, psychological addiction is also not just a simple matter of choice.

How do you know until you have experienced it.

Playing the odds. Many people who use crack become addicted to it and it destroys their lives.

but why should I "...be happier if I drown to save a passerby who has fallen into a river than if I watched him drown"

Well, you won't be happier. You'll be dead.
However, our lives are determined by our interaction with other poeple. By helping those around you, you make them happier, and you will be happier by extension. That's not to say you should spend your life making others happier, but it is a good experience to make someone happy. Laughter is infectious.

If you and a stranger where being held at gun point and the gun man said "one of you will die" would you say "kill me to save that mans life."

Not if the other person was you. :D

Surely your advocating a 'belief' of some kind here so you're not ignoring beliefs in general.

Semantics and words games!

I believe that life is utterly pointless, and I believe in self-indulgence.

The Feral Underclass

14th April 2004, 21:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 08:17 PM
Some people like having a good figure better than the taste of chocolate.
What people? If that is the case then let them have happy figures. My point remains the same tough. You should not waste your time trying to perfect a life which will not exist in years to come. If we were immoratal then doing this would have meaning. As we are not immortal there is no point, and we should seek to experience everything in the short time you do exist.

Sometimes you have to pay rent in order to be happy, even if you don't like the paying rent part.

You should not do something which makes you unhappy. Maybe some things are more practical than others, but you should not allow yourself to be forced to make such ilogical choices. Reject the concept of rent and then you wont be unhappy. If you are fearful of loosing your home then dont lose it.

You cannot reject everything which makes you unhappy, because some things you go through lead to happiness.

This is what pessimism is. Of course you can reject everything which makes you unhappy. It's a choice you make. You either reject it or dont reject it.

Many things you do do in life you will be conscious of...even the things which you will not necessarily see repercussions from can have an effect on your consciousness, if you believe they will affect others.

You will be conscious of things while you exist, in the sense you can see and understand the things you do, but that dosnt give them meaning. Repercussions are irrelevant to anyone because once you are dead you are dead. And attempting to give meaning to life as something which you do that "affects others" is abstract as 95% of the worlds population do not do that.

No you cannot. Your body can become physically addicted to plenty of things, psychological addiction is also not just a simple matter of choice.

Ultimatly everything that we are and everything that we percieve is through choice. If you smoke crack you are making a choice. If you get off taking crack, again you make a choice. It maybe difficult for a crack addict to make that choice, but until they do, they will continue to be a crack addict. And alcoholic can not get help until she chooses too.

Playing the odds. Many people who use crack become addicted to it and it destroys their lives.

You can not destroy something which does not exist. You have not lived so therefore you can not destroy it. You have a programmed socially conditioned concept of what it means to live, which drug addiction is a percieved negative deviation of. That is why you use this, I say the word again, abstract sentence "it destroys their lives." By saying that you have commanded that you know what life is. But you dont know what life is, so how can you say that being an addict can have a negative affect on it....Because you read the news. Addiction isnt the problem, society is.

our lives are determined by our interaction with other poeple. By helping those around you, you make them happier, and you will be happier by extension. That's not to say you should spend your life making others happier, but it is a good experience to make someone happy. Laughter is infectious.

I am not saying that people should not make people happy, if that is what they choose. I am saying why is it that the ethic, to make someone happy, is any more superior to the ethos, make me happy.

canikickit

14th April 2004, 21:53

What people?

Crazy people.

If that is the case then let them have happy figures. My point remains the same tough.

My point remains the same tough too.
Eating chocolate and maintaining a good ifgure are both things which can affect your life and different people like different things. Maintaining a good figure is not something abstract which will not be realised for years to come, it can affect your daily life.

These things are only "wasteful" from your perspective. People do things because they feel like it.

You should not do something which makes you unhappy.

Paying the rent supplies you with a place to lay your head at the end of the day. Do something you dislike, to allow yourself do more things that you do like in other aspects of your life. The important thing is to have a balance and make sure the bad is outweighed by the good.

This is what pessimism is. Of course you can reject everything which makes you unhappy. It's a choice you make. You either reject it or dont reject it.

You can reject it if you want, but in the long run, some things which are not so good at the time are worth it eventually.

You will be conscious of things while you exist, in the sense you can see and understand the things you do, but that dosnt give them meaning.

What is meaning? The consciousness of and reactions to your actions are what gives meaning.

Repercussions are irrelevant to anyone because once you are dead you are dead. And attempting to give meaning to life as something which you do that "affects others" is abstract as 95% of the worlds population do not do that.

Once you are dead you are dead, but when you are alive you are alive. Everything is nothing when you are dead, so why discuss it? I don't care about the reprecussion when your heart stops beating, I am talking about before hand.

Who cares about 95% of the world's population?
If you feel you can affect others positively and wish to do so, it will have a positive effect on your life. Unless you fail miserably, but have you got anything better to do?

Ultimatly everything that we are and everything that we percieve is through choice. If you smoke crack you are making a choice. If you get off taking crack, again you make a choice. It maybe difficult for a crack addict to make that choice, but until they do, they will continue to be a crack addict. And alcoholic can not get help until she chooses too.

You sometimes make a decision and fail. You may make the choice, but lack the will, or the ability. It's not as simple as clicking your fingers or flicking a switch, and making the choice. There is effort involved.

We cannot always obtain our choices.

Addiction isnt the problem, society is.

Society exists. Within the constrains of society, lives are made into a horrible mess which people do not enjoy when they take crack (or whatever).

You can not destroy something which does not exist. You have not lived so therefore you can not destroy it. You have a programmed socially conditioned concept of what it means to live, which drug addiction is a percieved negative deviation of.

It is a negative deviation because it can be very unpleasant. If worst comes to worst and you live with rats and beg for food and shit on your own doorstep...or whatever. These are not abstractly negative things. Shit smells bad, not because we are socially conditioned to think so, but because it is a waste product which has been used by humans and isn't directly useful any more.

I am not saying that people should not make people happy, if that is what they choose. I am saying why is it that the ethic, to make someone happy, is any more superior to the ethos, make me happy.

Making other people happy is a more productive way of making yourself happy.
Your life is involved with the poeple you know, and if they are happy, you will also be more likely to be happy.

It is easier for two people to make each other happy than for one person to generate the same amount of happiness all by themselves. We are social animals.

I agree with being self-centred, I agree with most of what you are saying, I just think you have to take other people's perspectives into account.

The Feral Underclass

14th April 2004, 23:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 09:53 PM
Crazy people.
Crazy chocolate haters...I shake my fist in their faces!!!

Paying the rent supplies you with a place to lay your head at the end of the day. Do something you dislike, to allow yourself do more things that you do like in other aspects of your life. The important thing is to have a balance and make sure the bad is outweighed by the good.

I reject everything that your saying. I should not be forced to make choices that I do not want to make. I should not have to pay to live in a house so I can be safe. You should not have to make choices like that.

You can reject it if you want, but in the long run, some things which are not so good at the time are worth it eventually.

Nothing that makes you unhappy is worth doing. Me and my friends lived in a flat for over a year and paid little to no rent. They sent lots of letters and people knocked on our door, but we made a choice. We did not pay the right. Not through some nihilistic self awarness, but because we spent the money on other things that made us happy. People should not do anything that makes them unhappy.

What is meaning? The consciousness of and reactions to your actions are what gives meaning.

I am talking about meaning in the sense that they have a purpose. So you choose to make someone happy. Ok, so you made that choice, but what purpose. Nothing you do, whether it is to make someone happy or it is to write a thread intitled 'Be Nihilistic' has any meaning. It is purposless, because for all the happiness you bring and for the discussion we have when we are laying on our death beds it will mean nothing.

Once you are dead you are dead, but when you are alive you are alive. Everything is nothing when you are dead, so why discuss it? I don't care about the reprecussion when your heart stops beating, I am talking about before hand.

You were attempting to bring meaning to peoples actions. I am saying that ultimatly they mean nothing. Regardless of what repercussions they may have while your alive, or dead, doing something means nothing. If you remained alive, it would mean something, but you dont, so why bother. To bring some human happiness? Why dont they bring me happiness?

Who cares about 95% of the world's population?
If you feel you can affect others positively and wish to do so, it will have a positive effect on your life. Unless you fail miserably, but have you got anything better to do?

You were talking about affecting other peoples lives as if this was the meaning you can bring to life. If that was the case, everyone would be doing it and the world would be a different place. They arent doing that.

How does it affect me positivly? I feel a momentry serge of pleasure for doing good? I fill my ego even more to believe I am a saviour of people? For what purpose? What is this achieving? Bullshit. I would rather get drunk or take a drug or have sex with a beautiful man. Life is too short to indulge in egotistical acts of kindness. Should we all accept a moral of doing good? Should I deal with other peoples problems? Should we all accept a life of humanism because someone is more unfortunate than me? Why? Is it because it is the right thing to do? What is the right thing? How is it right? Because it gives someone life? What is life? Why is it that someone should have more of a right to life than me? I will sacrifice my life to safe someone elses? Why? Why would I do that? Is it because everyone expects that. No! Otherwise people would do it. They dont. So what right do they have to judge how another person acts.

You sometimes make a decision and fail. You may make the choice, but lack the will, or the ability.

Any action you take is throught choice. There can be nothing until you have percieved it. If you are feeble in mind it is because you have chosen to be that way. If you lack ability that is because you have chosen to be lazy. No chemical suppresses ability or will. If you are going cold turkey and you are laid in bed, you are making a choice. Do i take heroin or do I not. The drug is urging you to take it. Your body is aching for the drug, your mind is throbbing, all you can think about is injecting your vein with that drug because then the pain will go away...Does the chemical then over power the brain, does the chemical take control of the neuro charges in your brain, does it take control of your arms and legs. No. You choose. You decide. You give in. Yes the drug is bad and yes it is tuff, but reduce every action right down and you will see it comes through choice, through a choice a human mind makes on whether to do something or not to do it.

It's not as simple as clicking your fingers or flicking a switch, and making the choice. There is effort involved.

How do you make the effort....Through choice. You choose to make an effort and you equally choose not to.

We cannot always obtain our choices.

Bullshit!

Society exists. Within the constrains of society, lives are made into a horrible mess which people do not enjoy when they take crack (or whatever).

If you provided every crack and smack addict with free drugs for their entire life, a good home without having to worry about eating etc there would be no problem. That dosnt exist. People have to steal to get their drug and at the same time they must eat and have somewhere to stay. They can not have a job because they are addicts so they are isolated by society with pittyful handouts and ghetto style living conditions. It is not the drug, it is the lack of options from taking it. The rejection, the isolation, the anger, the dehumanization. That is the problem. Are the smack addicts you see walking around the streets begging for money, are they taken in, are they provided for, are they give opporunities. Are they spoken to like people who have feelings and thoughts. No, they are called addicts, shoved in shit hole flats in council estates with 42 pounds a week to spend to eat. They are vilified in the media as animals and evil people. That is not the drug. That's society.

It is a negative deviation because it can be very unpleasant. If worst comes to worst and you live with rats and beg for food and shit on your own doorstep...or whatever.

Who forces that on them. Society. The state, the government. So what if they want to take smack, thats there choice. But we should not live in a society where those choices are attacked and segregated. It is simply a choice, just as choosing to eat peanut butter is.

Shit smells bad, not because we are socially conditioned to think so, but because it is a waste product which has been used by humans and isn't directly useful any more.

Fuck what is usful, drugs are great fun. I should be able to do them and eat, sleep and exist freely and happily without ever going to university or getting a job.

Making other people happy is a more productive way of making yourself happy.

Why?

Your life is involved with the poeple you know, and if they are happy, you will also be more likely to be happy. It is easier for two people to make each other happy than for one person to generate the same amount of happiness all by themselves. We are social animals.

I agree.

I agree with being self-centred, I agree with most of what you are saying, I just think you have to take other people's perspectives into account.

I am taking other perspectives into account. That's the point. Percieve what you want, but dont be unhappy with what ever it is you percieve. Otherwise it is a waste of time.

eyedrop

14th April 2004, 23:20

Shit smells bad, not because we are socially conditioned to think so, but because it is a waste product which has been used by humans and isn't directly useful any more. Does shit really smell bad? One time I came up with the tought that all smells we smell are labeled by society as bad or good.

After I had thought of that thought for a while(a few days) suddendly I smelled all the bad odours and found out that they smelled, for excample, shit and not bad. Then I felt it like things only smelled differently and not bad/good. It was really cool as I could stand in the worst fart( and think :Here it smelled a greatly fart) and actually not feeling any illness at the smell. It felt real liberating to enjoy all smells.

Allthough I can not be sure that I didn't trick myself to belive that none smells smelled bad.

I was a nihilist myself a half a year ago. I had gotten the philosophy by reading some physics books and finding out how nothing mattered. It was so delightful to be under that philosophy as I didn't really care about anything and therefore nothing could hurt me.

It's too bad that I slowly lost the belief and started to feel bad about thing again. I know it's all that political lecture that has made me feel again. It started slowly with the sympathy for the sweat- shops workers and by time I catched myself crying for the millions starving, while we burn food to keep the prices low.

I would be willing to do almost anything to get that non-caring thought-line again. It was so wonderful to really be unhurtable, I felt that only physical pain could hurt me, but pain is only pain. It would go over or I would die.

canikickit

14th April 2004, 23:49

I reject everything that your saying. I should not be forced to make choices that I do not want to make. I should not have to pay to live in a house so I can be safe. You should not have to make choices like that.

But we do. Or at least it is easier to do so.
It's not so bad having to put in a bit of effort somewhere to enjoy yourself elsewhere. Like washing the dishes straight after you eat, so you won't have to later. That is what I am getting at. Life is not all fun and games, we do have to put in an effort to be happy.

I remember my good friend Shakespear put it well: "If all the year were playing holidays; To sport would be as tedious as to work".

Nothing that makes you unhappy is worth doing.

No. But some things make you unhappy, but will result in happiness. I don't like walking home, I'd rather have a magical transport machine, but I like it when I get home.

Nothing you do, whether it is to make someone happy or it is to write a thread intitled 'Be Nihilistic' has any meaning.

Of course it has meaning.
It just doesn't have meaning on some sort of fantastic grand scale where we are important people. It has meaning to you, in the context of your life, and that's all that matters. Who cares about after you are dead? It's irrelevant.
Why see things from the perspective of your death bed? What's that got to do with now?

You were attempting to bring meaning to peoples actions. I am saying that ultimatly they mean nothing.

What means nothing is the ultimate. What means nothing is things which happen outside of our life.

Regardless of what repercussions they may have while your alive, or dead, doing something means nothing.

How can you disregard the reprecussions? The reprecussions are the meaning. Why look at the "grander scheme of things", what about today?

To bring some human happiness? Why dont they bring me happiness?

They do bring you happiness, and you bring them happiness.

You were talking about affecting other peoples lives as if this was the meaning you can bring to life. If that was the case, everyone would be doing it and the world would be a different place.

That's not true. Not everyone agrees with canikickit.

How does it affect me positivley?

Like I said, if it is something you want to do, and you succeed, you will be positively effected by what we in the business call a "job well done".

I would rather get drunk or take a drug or have sex with a beautiful man.

Are you coming onto me?

Should we all accept a moral of doing good? Should I deal with other peoples problems? Should we all accept a life of humanism because someone is more unfortunate than me? Why? Is it because it is the right thing to do? What is the right thing? How is it right? Because it gives someone life? What is life? Why is it that someone should have more of a right to life than me? I will sacrifice my life to safe someone elses? Why? Why would I do that? Is it because everyone expects that. No! Otherwise people would do it. They dont. So what right do they have to judge how another person acts.

The right thing to do is make yourself happy.
I believe that making other people happy will make you happy.
You don't have to run around saving the whales or de-mining fields, and you definitely don't need to sacrafice your life for someone else's, just do what you want.

Living for yourself is more boring though, I beleive.

If you are feeble in mind it is because you have chosen to be that way.

You chose to have a bullet lodged in your brain?
You chose to be crashed into by a Honda Civic and to have your friend fly through the air and smash against your temple with his kneecap?
No.

but reduce every action right down and you will see it comes through choice, through a choice a human mind makes on whether to do something or not to do it.

Yes, yes, yes, but you cannot just decide for yourself. we have to take everything into account. You don't "just make the choice", there are countless factors which result in you making that choice.

Bullshit!

You can't fly.
Come on! It's simple, we live in a capitalist system, I know you don't believe in all that American Dream / Equal opportunity shite. That is what I am talking about, life is tough. Some people want to quit heroin but they can't because they've no one to help them out, because society shuns them.

We can't always instantly obtain our choices also, we may have to work up the effort first, but perhaps get hit by a bus first. It's not bullshit, it's true. Life is not a fantasy where we can do what we want. It's tough, it's capitalism.

If you provided every crack and smack addict with free drugs for their entire life, a good home without having to worry about eating etc there would be no problem. That dosnt exist.

Damn man, you make it sound as if I'm against legalisation. :D
No, it doesn't exist. How come? How is it going to change? By telling people they can do what they want, the world is your oyster?

That's society.

That is what I said to you.

Fuck what is usful, drugs are great fun.

Fun is useful.

Why?

The thing that I said next and that you agreed with...

Your life is involved with the poeple you know, and if they are happy, you will also be more likely to be happy. It is easier for two people to make each other happy than for one person to generate the same amount of happiness all by themselves. We are social animals.

This is central to all I am saying.

I am taking other perspectives into account. That's the point. Percieve what you want, but dont be unhappy with what ever it is you percieve. Otherwise it is a waste of time.

If you are unhappy with what you percieve, is that a choice?
It is a reaction to surroundings. If you are unhappy with what you percieve then you must change it, and to change it you must accept that it is making you unhappy. Otherwise unhappiness is a waste of time.

perception

15th April 2004, 00:38

goddammit, look: Nothing matters, but it doesn't matter that nothing matters.

Nothing is right or wrong and there is no point to life, only subjective interpretations.

You can look at it like that, or this: since all we have are subjective interpretations, our interpretation is everything.

Since nothing matters, everything matters. You say people's lives are meaningless, but that's not true; they have meaning vis a vis one another. You have the weight of the future of the human race on your shoulders, and you should approach every decision you make with that in mind. If everyone took your view of 'kill yourself or die trying' life would be too much of a sh¡thole to philosophize about such things.

apathy maybe

15th April 2004, 02:23

Forgive me if these points have been covered.

I can't do whatever I want 'cause society rejects that. Not only that I can't do what ever I want that won't hurt another. I can't inject drugs in broad daylight in the middle of a mall. Police will arrest me, I didn't do anything to anyone else, I didn't hurt anyone, yet society feels that I have done something wrong.

If you truely want to be a nihilist, really I think you must first be an Anarchist or a Communist (or both). You must change society to accept nihilism.

Also what happened to treat others as you would like to be treated? The reason I dislike dictatorships is that it is probable that I would not be the dictator. I work for things that are good for me, no matter what. Anarchism is good for me 'cause no one has power over me.

Forget nihilism for now, work for a world where society will accpet you as you are. That means making it a world where society will accept everyone as they are.

Danton

15th April 2004, 07:42

TAT come home, all that heat is making you loco.. How can we be happy if we don't know what it is to be sad, a man who has come through adversity to find happiness, has true happiness.. Like tantric sex, the longer you prolong gratification the greater it is when it arrives..

The Feral Underclass

15th April 2004, 09:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 12:38 AM
Since nothing matters, everything matters. You say people's lives are meaningless, but that's not true; they have meaning vis a vis one another. You have the weight of the future of the human race on your shoulders, and you should approach every decision you make with that in mind. If everyone took your view of 'kill yourself or die trying' life would be too much of a sh¡thole to philosophize about such things.
Your just a human. A little animal scurying around, attacking meaning to your otherwise pointless life. Life has no purpose. It means nothing, you simply exist. Of course you can attack meaning to your life by doing good for someone. You can attach meaning by saying that you are doing this and doing that, but there is not meaning. Only what you percieve to be meaning.

The Feral Underclass

15th April 2004, 09:21

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 15 2004, 02:23 AM
Forgive me if these points have been covered.

I can't do whatever I want 'cause society rejects that. Not only that I can't do what ever I want that won't hurt another. I can't inject drugs in broad daylight in the middle of a mall. Police will arrest me, I didn't do anything to anyone else, I didn't hurt anyone, yet society feels that I have done something wrong.

If you truely want to be a nihilist, really I think you must first be an Anarchist or a Communist (or both). You must change society to accept nihilism.

Also what happened to treat others as you would like to be treated? The reason I dislike dictatorships is that it is probable that I would not be the dictator. I work for things that are good for me, no matter what. Anarchism is good for me 'cause no one has power over me.

Forget nihilism for now, work for a world where society will accpet you as you are. That means making it a world where society will accept everyone as they are.
I agree fundamentally with what you are saying, but I will add that individually or within a group of friends nihilism is not only workable, but noble.

The Feral Underclass

15th April 2004, 09:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 07:42 AM
TAT come home, all that heat is making you loco..
It's just an experiment...calm down! :P

How can we be happy if we don't know what it is to be sad, a man who has come through adversity to find happiness, has true happiness

I'm not entirly sure what this has to do with what I am saying?

The Feral Underclass

15th April 2004, 09:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 11:20 PM
I would be willing to do almost anything to get that non-caring thought-line again. It was so wonderful to really be unhurtable, I felt that only physical pain could hurt me, but pain is only pain. It would go over or I would die.
It's truly liberating, but at the same time you have the danger of becoming pittyful of people who do not think it...

From Camus 'The Outisder' when 'Meursault' faces death for murdering someone. In the face of such an inevitablity that would take away his life he rejects hope or a perception of life to liberate himself. We all face death, so why should we hope, why should we not liberate ourselves. (The he the charactor is talking about is a Priest that came to see him against his will which throws him into a fit of anger.)

"...I was sure of myself, sure of everything, surer than he was, sure of my life and sure of the death that was coming to me. yes, that was all I had. But at least it was a truth which I had hold of just as it had hold of me. I'd been right, I was still right, I was always right. I'd lived a certain way and I could just as well have lived a different way. I'd done ths and I hadn't done that. I hadn't done one thing whereas I had done another. So what? It was as if I'd been waiting all along for this moment and for the early dawn when i'd be justified. Nothing, nothing mattered and I knew very well why. He too knew why. From the depths of my future, througout the whole of this absurd life I'd been leading, I'd felt a vague breathe drifting towards me across all the years that were still to come, and on its way this breath had evened out everything that was then being proposed to me in the equally unreal years I was living through...For the first time in a very long time I thought of mother. I felt that I understood why at the end of her life she'd taken a 'fiance' and why she'd pretended to start again. There at the home, where lives faded away, there too the evenings were a kind of melancholy truce. So close to death, mother must have felt liberated and ready to live her life again. No one, no one at all had any right to cry for her. And I too felt ready to live my life again. As if this great outburst of anger had purged all my ills, killed all my hopes, I looked up at the mass of signs and stars in the night sky and laid myself open for the first time to the benign indifference of the world. And finding it so much like myself, in fact so fraternal, I realized that I'd been happy, and that I was still happy. For the final consummation and for me to feel less lonly, my last wish was that there should be a crowd of spectators at my execution and that they should greet me with cries of hatred."

Danton

15th April 2004, 12:27

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15 2004, 09:25 AM

How can we be happy if we don't know what it is to be sad, a man who has come through adversity to find happiness, has true happiness

I'm not entirly sure what this has to do with what I am saying?
Your telling us to reject anything that makes us unhappy, I'm saying that it is the unhappy and unpleasent experiences in life which enable us to appreiciate happiness.. Hence it is futile to reject unhappiness in an attempt to be happy..

El Che

15th April 2004, 13:14

TAT why do you want to impose selfishness as a way of life on others? You're right its a choice, so make yours and cease making definite statements on the 'meaning' of life. How can you claim to know if life has any meaning or not. Its just a view. If others choose to find meaning in life through altruism and the pursuit of ideals, I don't see how you can claim your position is any more 'correct' than theirs.

Pedro Alonso Lopez

15th April 2004, 16:50

Nihilism dosent have to be negative, you can simply embrace the absurdity, in other words say Yes to life!

toastedmonkey

15th April 2004, 18:20

el che

when did TAT force these ideas on people?
is it not reasonable for him to make a stall and allow others to possibly see a way of life which they are yet unknowing to?

cubist

15th April 2004, 19:01

i see, the point is that life should be allowed to travel its natural cuase. but people are scared of loosing you, i am not scared of death but my family is scared of life with out me. so when i am a vegetable on life support they will make the dicission that is best for them not me and i hate that.

The Feral Underclass

15th April 2004, 19:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 12:27 PM
Your telling us to reject anything that makes us unhappy, I'm saying that it is the unhappy and unpleasent experiences in life which enable us to appreiciate happiness.. Hence it is futile to reject unhappiness in an attempt to be happy..
I agree, and that is why I am able to reject things that make me unhappy. I understand the concept of happiness and unhappiness and therefore can make a nihilistic choice. I understand that I exist and what the existence could or couldnt not involve.

The Feral Underclass

15th April 2004, 20:06

Originally posted by El [email protected] 15 2004, 01:14 PM
TAT why do you want to impose selfishness as a way of life on others?
Why would I want to do that? That is not what I am doing. I think you have misunderstood me. I am saying that one perception of meaning is no more important than another.

You're right its a choice, so make yours and cease making definite statements on the 'meaning' of life.

Odd? I havent. Everyone else has. I have been saying the exact opposite. I have said that you can not giove life a meaning, because it has none. Only perceptions of meanings which different levels of superiority has been ascribed too by human minds.

How can you claim to know if life has any meaning or not.

It dosnt have a meaning. You are simply born. You are simply created. That is all you know. You know you exist and you know you die. It is very easy to misinterprate this statement as some kind of pessimism, but that's your problem not mine. It is pessimism, it's simply a fact.

If others choose to find meaning in life through altruism and the pursuit of ideals, I don't see how you can claim your position is any more 'correct' than theirs.

Your horse is definatly too high. I am not claiming that my position is more correct, I am simply stating fact. You prove my point by saying "others choose to find meaning.." That is just a perception. Of course you can choose to live a life of idealism oor altruism but that is not the meaning of life. You can give yourself meaning, but that meaning is no more valid than any other meaning. Just because I work in a humanitarian project in africa does not mean that my life has more meaning than someone who chooses to get drunk everyday. No life has a meaning, only a perception of meaning.

The Feral Underclass

15th April 2004, 20:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 04:50 PM
Nihilism dosent have to be negative, you can simply embrace the absurdity, in other words say Yes to life!
This is exactly it. Life is absurd and by accepting that nothing has a meaning and that nothing is important, your life can be very liberating.

El Che

15th April 2004, 20:23

Just because I work in a humanitarian project in africa does not mean that my life has more meaning than someone who chooses to get drunk everyday. No life has a meaning, only a perception of meaning. - TAT

What I'm trying to tell you is that not everyone has to agree with you. Instead of assuming a personal philosophic position you're telling me how it is. I beg to differ.

Among the most famous and influential existentialist propositions is Sartre's dictum, "existence precedes essence," which is generally taken to mean that there is no pre-defined moral or spiritual essence to humanity except that which we make for ourselves. Human beings are not pre-determined in any way but are free to do as they choose - they must be judged by their actions rather than by 'what they are', since they 'are' entirely what they do. This version of existentialism does not admit the existence of a god or of any other determining principle. Sartre also warned against all 'viscous' elements of existence, that might ensnare the freedom that is the human being. As long as the traps of viscosity can be avoided, the main problem for the human being then becomes that of how to choose one's actions.

Using a general line of thinking exemplified by Wittgenstein and the logical positivists, it could be said that, expressed in language, the question [of the meaning of life] is meaningless. This is because 'meaning of X' is a term in life usually conveying something regarding 'the consequences of X', or 'significance of X', or 'that which should be noted regarding X', etc..

Things in my life can therefore be said to have meaning (for me, for other people): my life can even be said to have meaning (legacy, achievements, family etc).

elijahcraig

15th April 2004, 20:30

Finally I can indulge my post-moralist fantasies...

Fade opened a thread on Post-Moralism at The Phora.

here's one of my attempts to reconcile Nietzche and Marx:

Revolutionary Nihilism

Everything about human society is invented. Our societies, our institutions, our cultures, our social environments, even our values and mores were created from nothingness and shaped into our reality, and it was in this fabricated environment that man was placed and forced to evolve, in a manner which would insure his survival and adaptation to the system in which he exists.

Can you prove any of this?

The Feral Underclass

15th April 2004, 20:36

Originally posted by El [email protected] 15 2004, 08:23 PM
What I'm trying to tell you is that not everyone has to agree with you. Instead of assuming a personal philosophic position you're telling me how it is. I beg to differ.
*coughs sarcastically*

There is not meaning to life...when you are born you are not told..."this is the meaning of life, now exist." What you do, and this is what you said, you choose a meaning...you the go on to prove my point even further by quoting this...

Among the most famous and influential existentialist propositions is Sartre's dictum, "existence precedes essence," which is generally taken to mean that there is no pre-defined moral or spiritual essence to humanity except that which we make for ourselves. Human beings are not pre-determined in any way but are free to do as they choose - they must be judged by their actions rather than by 'what they are', since they 'are' entirely what they do. This version of existentialism does not admit the existence of a god or of any other determining principle. Sartre also warned against all 'viscous' elements of existence, that might ensnare the freedom that is the human being. As long as the traps of viscosity can be avoided, the main problem for the human being then becomes that of how to choose one's actions.

Exactly!

El Che

15th April 2004, 20:50

What you fail to realise about the existentialist position is that if existence precedes essence then essense is determined by existence. If you do good you are essentially good, if you do evil you are essentially evil. This goes against your nihilistic freedom.

The Feral Underclass

15th April 2004, 21:06

So you class not doing good as being evil? What do you do to do good? How many people do you help or save or bring joy and happiness to their lives?

I am saying that doing good is one meaning you can percieve, but that meaning dosnt make it any more superior than if you choose not to do good and to be hedonistic. They are simply perceptions, and one is not greater or more important than another.

Edward Norton

15th April 2004, 22:13

Well TAT, why do you seek fun and happiness, if life is pointless and without ANY meaning then happiness and fun should not be of any concern to you.

Plus from my own understanding, without unhappiness, you cannot have happiness as one compliments the other. Just like without evil there is no good.

Besides if you really see no point in life because of your mortality, then go ahead and kill yourself, as you would only be embracing the inevitable.

The Feral Underclass

16th April 2004, 05:20

Originally posted by Edward [email protected] 15 2004, 10:13 PM
Well TAT, why do you seek fun and happiness, if life is pointless and without ANY meaning then happiness and fun should not be of any concern to you
I seek happiness because it's more agreeable to me than being unhappy. It's more logical to be happy than unhappy. Taking that and seeing that there are things that make me unhappy, I say reject all those things because life is too short to accept unhappiness if you want to be happy.

Plus from my own understanding, without unhappiness, you cannot have happiness as one compliments the other. Just like without evil there is no good.

I agree, and that is why I have the luxury of rejecting unhappiness.

Besides if you really see no point in life because of your mortality, then go ahead and kill yourself, as you would only be embracing the inevitable.

But I enjoy existing. Why would I want to kill myself? I dont want to die right now.

Nas

17th April 2004, 03:51

TAT ,i want to know an example of how you reject unhappyness!!!!!!!!!!!

The Feral Underclass

17th April 2004, 06:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 03:51 AM
TAT ,i want to know an example of how you reject unhappyness!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't do things which make me unhappy, in a general sense.

Don't Change Your Name

18th April 2004, 00:47

I'll give an idea to everyone:
if you have a toothache, you will possibly go to a dentist (that's if you can), because you want it to stop. I think that's right, doing something that is good for you.
But for example I always thought that putting all those things on the kids mouths (i don't know how they are named in english, you know, those devices that put teeth "where they should be") is stupid because of the fact that you are gonna die anyway. I had to use some of those for a while when i was a kid, but I dont feel a lot of difference. What's the point of that? You'll die anyway, all that teeth thing doesn't matter too much with few exceptions.
That's a nice example of things that make sense or not. Of course I might be wrong that that's hard to prove.

DaCuBaN

18th April 2004, 10:42

Are we responsible for our own situations? Nietzche wrote, in The Geneology of Morals, that the weak have no one to blame but themselves for their condition, that they are constantly trying to convince the strong that it is wrong, or immoral, or somehow corrupt to be strong, to be powerful. This is not untrue, however harsh it sounds. The time has come for the dispossessed to stop blaming the powerful for the conditions in which they find themselves. Power lies in the hands of those who were shrewd enough to seize it when they had the opportunity. If we want power, we must take it ourselves. We cannot blame our oppressors for oppressing us, we must blame ourselves for allowing them to oppress us; we must blame ourselves for our own helplessness. Nobody blames the wolf for being a wolf; nor would anybody think it reasonable for the sheep to simply wait for the wolf to develop a conscience and stop devouring them. The wolves will not gain a conscience. They will acquiesce only enough to keep us complacent, because they fear the day when we have nothing to lose but our chains. Our goal is not to become wolves ourselves, but to wipe the wolves from the face of the earth, and any memories of the society they created, based on a culture of servitude, from the collective human consciousness. But to do this, it seems necessary that we adopt the tactics of the oppressor. We must fight fire with fire

Just a little addition - wolves have been extinct in the UK (other than bred into domestics) for years. They realised that the poor sheep can't defend themselves. This just goes further to enforce the fact that people are dumb or they would have made the link that theirselves. Shows how poor the education system is that it's not that well known a quote outside political circles.

Anarchist Tension - although your calling is a great one I can see why it has disheartened you so. The problem is doing humanitarian work you really still are impotent to change the world - you're fighting the impossible fight - and as far as I'm concerned you deserver a hell of a lot of respect for that. This is why I'm so determined to revolt - we can't seem to fix the problem under the current system, so lets TRY another way.

perception

18th April 2004, 16:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 05:42 AM
Just a little addition - wolves have been extinct in the UK (other than bred into domestics) for years. They realised that the poor sheep can't defend themselves. This just goes further to enforce the fact that people are dumb or they would have made the link that theirselves. Shows how poor the education system is that it's not that well known a quote outside political circles.

this is absolutely nonsensical.

The Feral Underclass

19th April 2004, 15:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 10:42 AM
Anarchist Tension - although your calling is a great one I can see why it has disheartened you so.

I am not disheartened. I am sorry if I gave that impression. I have manintained throughout this thread that my originaly post should not be looked at in a pessimistic way. It is not a statement of depression. On the contrary it is an embrace of life.

The problem is doing humanitarian work you really still are impotent to change the world - you're fighting the impossible fight - and as far as I'm concerned you deserver a hell of a lot of respect for that.

Thank you, it is appreciated. However, there is an argument to be had whether my work in africa is more important than building a revolutionary movement, that is not the purpose of my original statement. I am simply demonstrating a fact. We live in a purposless world. It has no meaning. It simply exists. I am saying that being selfish is no less important than not being selfish. I am saying that we should reject things that make us unhappy because there is only a certain amount of time we get to exist, and while we spend that time being unhappy, we are not being happy. We are not enjoying our existence. It is an absurdity of life.

This is why I'm so determined to revolt - we can't seem to fix the problem under the current system, so lets TRY another way.

I agree.

DaCuBaN

19th April 2004, 16:01

Originally posted by perception+Apr 18 2004, 04:20 PM--> (perception @ Apr 18 2004, 04:20 PM)
[email protected] 18 2004, 05:42 AM
Just a little addition - wolves have been extinct in the UK (other than bred into domestics) for years. They realised that the poor sheep can't defend themselves. This just goes further to enforce the fact that people are dumb or they would have made the link that theirselves. Shows how poor the education system is that it's not that well known a quote outside political circles.

this is absolutely nonsensical. [/b]
lol yeah sorry... I was stoned, doesn't make much sense now I come to look at it in a new light :lol: Getting too caught up in analogy

MiniOswald

19th April 2004, 17:10

im surprised no-ones done any lebowski quotes yet

Dawood

20th April 2004, 22:29

Bombs, famine and suffering to the people! Nihilism rules! :lol:

I'm not active enough on this forum to take an active part in the discussion, but I give the nihilists my full support.

Want to recommend the site www.counterorder.com if it hasn't already come up in the course of the discussion. Both political, historical and philosophical nihilism is discussed there.

The Feral Underclass

20th April 2004, 23:22

Thanks for that site...its been and will continue to be extremly helpful and usful.

Hegemonicretribution

21st April 2004, 08:57

I agree with a hell of a lot of what has gone before...however just as you were saying that negative sentiments towards things are a result of society, surely the same must apply to positive aspects. If everything is truly down to perception, then I would long for a life of xperience and senstation in order to realise my self. I would rather try all extrmemes and and every intermittent feeling, than simply go around in some happy daze.

You said nothing lasts, perhaps then attemptiong to achieve imortality should be our goal, leave a mark... I think I could be put to rest "happy" if I knew that I had affected lives for ever, if possible.

RedAnarchist

21st April 2004, 09:01

I agree Hege.

But we must ensure that any actions which lead to immortality are positive. They should be acts of humanity, not hate or violence. We remeber Che as a revolutionary freedom fighter who who despised injustice and capitalism. He will always be seen as a good person. Stalin and Hitler, however, will be remembered only for their inhumane evil and hatred.

iloveatomickitten

21st April 2004, 16:43

But if I give food to a family, I only prolong that life
............
to prolong anothers life for a couple more years is not a waste

By prolonging their lives you are not helping them - thier lives are not going to be comfortable in fact they're going to be awful and keeping them alive is simply prolonging their suffering.

Life has no value in itself and people need to realise that, the only thing that has value in itself is happiness.

here i was thinkin you were gonna be all pesamistic, like all the other anarchists i know

Oh really you pyromaniac monkey boy.

Palmares

22nd April 2004, 14:21

Alot has been said here, but I'll try to give my view on what I remember (probably not much). I probably will reiterate points already made.

Firstly, this 'nihilistic' view appears to be based some sort of utilitarianism (as Wenty said earlier), whether on a individual basis, or socio-individual (maybe this is too much a oxymoron, I just mean every individual) basis. However TAT's view is absolute utilitarianism - hedonism, yet it is not. Hedonism (as I understand it), does not entail no unhappiness, but rather, to harness happiness, and minimise pain. But then the line is blurry (as mentioned before) but such things as 'the ends justifies the means'. An example: you have to choose between a medicore, but survivable capitalist society, or to 'arouse' a revolution that may kill people (including you), or even fail causing the execution of the revolutionaries (or worse). Those are the choices. But what are the possible consequences? The capitalist society would be okay... but the society that is spawned from the revolution could be better, perhaps some sort of socialism. Some pain for some gain (the 'ol cliche). This however really depends on whether you measure (if it is possible) the overall happiness of one choice and its consequence as better as the other. But say that the revolution (the choice that brings at least temporary pain) brings greater happiness overall. Could such a thing apply to your view TAT? If it does not, at the very least, your view does ignore future possibilities - living in the moment perhaps?

I have another point. As others have mentioned, one could not conceptually understand what 'hapiness' is without something to compare or contrast it to - 'unhappiness'. Our understanding (however subjective or indoctrinated by society) of existence is based on our experience of our existence - empiricism. To understand what pain is, you must experience it. Someone may tell you "Anal fucking hurts my arse". But you only 'know' it hurts, you don't understand it. Of course we can't experience everything, but to maximise your understanding on anything, you must base it on as much empiricism as you can. So without experiencing 'unhappiness', 'happiness' really would only be, well... a word, a concept. Perhaps it is already just a subjective concept, but you shape it around your own experience of it, as compared to what it isn't (ie 'unhappiness'). But bringing it back, without this subjective shaping of it, it really isn't subjective: without your personal experience of it, the most you can grasp of it is that it has a dictionary definition.

Fundamentally though, I agree with your nihilism, or maybe even (nihilistic) existentialism. I personally don't agree about drugs (though I wouldn't disallow them), as I view them as simply 'easy ways out', that is, an escapism of thus not accepting this nothingness. Why pretend otherwise? It isn't that you like the drug, you like the escape from reality that it can provide (though at lower dosages after increased consumption). The same goes for other narcotics or whatver, like alcohol. It amazes me how people I know who drink alcohol not because they like the taste, but because it gets them drunk (most at least think this subconsciously) or even worse, because it is 'cool'. Now that I go to university, I see how dillusional many people really are. Perhaps this can be an argument for your view. Consequences of pain which results in happiness is dillusional. But then again, a good socialism would last longer than any comsumable escapism (hopefully - though I don't believe in fate).

I'm not sure if I've really gotten anyway, or if anyone really understands, but I've said it, and it was my choice. My political vigour is dieing, so ex nihilo, nihil fit does ring true to me at the moment.

toastedmonkey

22nd April 2004, 19:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 05:43 PM

But if I give food to a family, I only prolong that life
............
to prolong anothers life for a couple more years is not a waste

By prolonging their lives you are not helping them - thier lives are not going to be comfortable in fact they're going to be awful and keeping them alive is simply prolonging their suffering.

Life has no value in itself and people need to realise that, the only thing that has value in itself is happiness.

here i was thinkin you were gonna be all pesamistic, like all the other anarchists i know

Oh really you pyromaniac monkey boy.
i didnt mean keep them alive, i meant giving them life
a situation where they can make their own happiness

oh dont be so arrogant, who said i was talking about you?

The Feral Underclass

24th April 2004, 13:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 04:21 PM
An example: you have to choose between a medicore, but survivable capitalist society, or to 'arouse' a revolution that may kill people (including you), or even fail causing the execution of the revolutionaries (or worse). Those are the choices. But what are the possible consequences? The capitalist society would be okay... but the society that is spawned from the revolution could be better, perhaps some sort of socialism. Some pain for some gain (the 'ol cliche).
In terms of a revolution, nihilists would argue that there should be a revolution simply because the system is so wrong. That the destruction of the system should happen not really for a reason but just because it is bad, making the notion of happiness and unhappiness irrelevant. In fact, nihilists would not see the benifit of judging the situation in such a way. Only that the system is bad and should be changed.

Could such a thing apply to your view TAT? If it does not, at the very least, your view does ignore future possibilities - living in the moment perhaps?

My perception of happiness and unhappiness amybe different to yours. You may think that being a part of a revolution and dying is what brings happiness to you. You should do what makes you feel happy. Regardless fo what it is.

It would make me happy being involved in a revolutionary movement to change society. It would not make me happy working. So I wont do it.

I have another point. As others have mentioned, one could not conceptually understand what 'hapiness' is without something to compare or contrast it to - 'unhappiness'. Our understanding (however subjective or indoctrinated by society) of existence is based on our experience of our existence

That is why I can reject it.

I personally don't agree about drugs (though I wouldn't disallow them), as I view them as simply 'easy ways out'

Why is your definition of 'easy way out' more important or relevant than mine. You can not make a statement like that as fact. It is only your subjective view. I could take drugs because it provides with an experience I couldnt experience if I did not take it.

Why pretend otherwise? It isn't that you like the drug, you like the escape from reality that it can provide

I dont think it is an escape from reality in the sense you mean it. However, life is far more interesting when your on drugs. I like that escapism. Is that so bad?

It amazes me how people I know who drink alcohol not because they like the taste, but because it gets them drunk

But that's the point...I am sure some people do drink because they like the taste. I think that's a rediculous reason to drink alcohol. Alcohol is a chemical put in liquid for the specific job of making you drunk. Why else would you drink it...If you want the taste of beer but not get drunk, by non/alcoholic beer, or shandy.

or even worse, because it is 'cool'.

What's wrong with wanting to look cool. It's equally as justifiable as wanting to look uncool. Who said that one was less important than the other. Once again, people use their own personal perceptions to justify the meaning of life. There is no meaning, so you can't judge peoples lives. This is the point.

Consequences of pain which results in happiness is dillusional.

You are defining what is and what is not dillusional. You are no more important than me or anyone else. I like to drink until I am as drunk as a tramp. That makes me happy. It makes me happy to take drugs. How is that dillusional. What is dillusional? Percpetions are just that. Perceptions. Neither fact or fiction, merely an interpretation of the absurdness of existence.

Pedro Alonso Lopez

24th April 2004, 14:02

In terms of a revolution, nihilists would argue that there should be a revolution simply because the system is so wrong

I dont think that would be the general concensus among most nihilists. Most nihilists define it as faith in nothing, that includes revolution, communism etc. regardless of how a system is.

The Feral Underclass

24th April 2004, 14:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 04:02 PM
I dont think that would be the general concensus among most nihilists. Most nihilists define it as faith in nothing, that includes revolution, communism etc. regardless of how a system is.
This is a common misconception. Nihilism is defined as a belief in things which are proven. To quiote Freydis A common (but misleading) description of nihilism is the 'belief in nothing'. Instead, a far more useful one would substitute 'faith' for 'belief' where faith is defined as the "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."

There are also two types of nihilism. Social and political. Political Nihilism is defined in the realization "that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility."

Nihilism Defined (http://www.counterorder.com/nihilism.html)

Palmares

24th April 2004, 14:50

In terms of a revolution, nihilists would argue that there should be a revolution simply because the system is so wrong. That the destruction of the systems should be Byt these standards the notion of happiness and unhappiness become irrelevant. In fact, nihilists would not see the benifit of judging the situation in such a way. Only that the system is bad and should be changed.

That may well be the case, but by your 'doctrine' as such, you reject any form of 'unhapiness', but a revolution most likely (as what a revolution is understood as being) would cause at least some short term pain. Is this an acceptable situation for you? If you wish, it doesn't have to result in socialism (it was simply an example), perhaps anarchism (and let's say you don't have to work)?

My perception of happiness and unhappiness amybe different to yours. You may think that being a part of a revolution and dying is what brings happiness to you. You should do what makes you feel happy. Regardless fo what it is.

It would make me happy being involved in a revolutionary movement to change society. It would not make me happy working. So I wont do it.

In the absolute sense, I 100% agree.

That is why I can reject it.

What do you mean by this? Do you deny the concept, or others interpretation(s) of it? Nevertheless, what I really want to know is how someone can know what 'happiness' is without having compared it to what it isn't (ie 'unhappiness')?

Why is your definition of 'easy way out' more important or relevant than mine. You can not make a statement like that as fact. It is only your subjective view. I could take drugs because it provides with an experience I couldnt experience if I did not take it.

I did not say my views are any more important than yours, nor did I make them to be fact. I said "I personally (think)..."

Saying that drugs can give an experience to an individual that they cannot experience outside of that substance is circumstantial. Some (not all) drugs put your body in a bad state, and neglecting your body, such as sleep deprivation can give you similar feelings that some drugs can provide. Do not treat your opinion as fact. I will pretend mine is either, as some drugs can reach beyond my example.

I dont think it is an escape from reality in the sense you mean it. However, life is far more interesting when your on drugs. I like that escapism. Is that so bad?

People use 'escapisms' for different reasons, but fundamentally at the subscious level I believe (in other words, my subjective opinion) that people use escapisms to go somewhere 'better', as life isn't "up to scratch". It has to do with people's dissatifications with existence. It can be political, environmental, social, etc. Drugs are used by all sorts of differrent people. Many people believe rich people to be happy, but they are not exempt from dissatifications. Younger people are, broadly speaking, more unhappy than any other age group (eg suicide rates among the young generation).

I simply believe escapisms are a form of denial. You are denying existence in its purest form (as opposed to an illusion). That is what I believe anyway. I do not pretend to be exempt from escapisms. One cannot escape contradictions (unless you are a absolute indoctrinated dogmatist who never changes, whether your views or actions).

What's wrong with wanting to look cool. It's equally as justifiable as wanting to look uncool. Who said that one was less important than the other. Once again, people use their own personal perceptions to justify the meaning of life. There is no meaning, so you can't judge peoples lives. This is the point.

I reject their concept of 'cool'. And thus I judge them because they attach meaning to something I believe is meaningless ('coolness'). That is my point.

You are defining what is and what is not dillusional. You are no more important than me or anyone else. I like to drink until I am as drunk as a tramp. That makes me happy. It makes me happy to take drugs. How is that dillusional. What is dillusional? Percpetions are just that. Perceptions. Neither fact or fiction, merely an interpretation of the absurdness of existence.

If I understand you correctly, that means you are saying that it is okay to pretend (in whatever form). Given your 'doctrine', fair enough. However I do not accept it, as I believe pretending (though not absolutely) is a form of denial. Similar to what I mentioned before.

I wish to ask you one important question. I hope this isn't rude, but do you believe the world can be interpreted in terms of 'black and white'? What I mean, is that you have (at least in some cases) divided things into two spectrums. For exmaple, 'happiness' and 'unhappiness'. Surely you don't believe existence isn't as simple as that? I personally don't believe in absolutes (but not absolutely), even though that is an absolute concept in itself (confusing and contradictory I know, but we can't justify all our beliefs I guess, just my interpretation). Also, you said you don't pay rent or dont work. How do you survive and what do you do with your existence (I'm not bagging you, just wondering)? If you are a student, the second one may not apply.

Pedro Alonso Lopez

24th April 2004, 14:56

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Apr 24 2004, 02:20 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Apr 24 2004, 02:20 PM)
[email protected] 24 2004, 04:02 PM
I dont think that would be the general concensus among most nihilists. Most nihilists define it as faith in nothing, that includes revolution, communism etc. regardless of how a system is.
This is a common misconception. Nihilism is defined as a belief in things which are proven. To quiote Freydis A common (but misleading) description of nihilism is the 'belief in nothing'. Instead, a far more useful one would substitute 'faith' for 'belief' where faith is defined as the "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."

There are also two types of nihilism. Social and political. Political Nihilism is defined in the realization "that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility."

Nihilism Defined (http://www.counterorder.com/nihilism.html) [/b]
I certainly hope your view of nihilism is being shaped by counterorder, a website I have major problems with. It is full of inaccuricies and worse it gives a twisted view of somebodys personal beliefs and slaps them on to all kinds of people who were clearly not nihilists.

Early in the nineteenth century, Friedrich Jacobi used the word to negatively characterize transcendental idealism. It only became popularized, however, after its appearance in Ivan Turgenev's novel Fathers and Sons (1862) where he used "nihilism" to describe the crude scientism espoused by his character Bazarov who preaches a creed of total negation

In Russia, nihilism became identified with a loosely organized revolutionary movement (C.1860-1917) that rejected the authority of the state, church, and family

The earliest philosophical positions associated with what could be characterized as a nihilistic outlook are those of the Skeptics. Because they denied the possibility of certainty, Skeptics could denounce traditional truths as unjustifiable opinions. When Demosthenes (c.371-322 BC), for example, observes that "What he wished to believe, that is what each man believes" (Olynthiac), he posits the relational nature of knowledge. Extreme skepticism, then, is linked to epistemological nihilism which denies the possibility of knowledge and truth; this form of nihilism is currently identified with postmodern antifoundationalism. Nihilism, in fact, can be understood in several different ways. Political Nihilism, as noted, is associated with the belief that the destruction of all existing political, social, and religious order is a prerequisite for any future improvement. Ethical nihilism or moral nihilism rejects the possibility of absolute moral or ethical values. Instead, good and evil are nebulous, and values addressing such are the product of nothing more than social and emotive pressures. Existential nihilism is the notion that life has no intrinsic meaning or value, and it is, no doubt, the most commonly used and understood sense of the word today.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm

This is where I am taking my definition, counterorder is simplistic, a common misconception, as if his opinion is back ed up by years of scholarly research or something.

The Feral Underclass

24th April 2004, 15:19

Nothing in what you provided refutes anything that freydis says. Alot of it reaffirms what he says...

The Feral Underclass

24th April 2004, 15:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 04:50 PM
What do you mean by this? Do you deny the concept, or others interpretation(s) of it? Nevertheless, what I really want to know is how someone can know what 'happiness' is without having compared it to what it isn't (ie 'unhappiness')?
You can not. That is why I can reject it. If I didnt know what unhappiness was, I wouldnt be able to reject it would I?

People use 'escapisms' for different reasons, but fundamentally at the subscious level I believe (in other words, my subjective opinion) that people use escapisms to go somewhere 'better', as life isn't "up to scratch".

Life isnt up to scratch and for many people they can barly exist. Taking drugs is an escape. But what does that definition really matter. You exist once, does it matter how you exist. So life is shit, why bother attempting to change it when you can just get high. I do not think that this needs to be interpreted in a pessimistic way. Of course it can be quite depressing for some people, but for others who accept existence and choose to escape it by taking drugs, it really dosnt matter.

I simply believe escapisms are a form of denial. You are denying existence in its purest form

Existence is not defined so how can you deny it? There is no right or wrong way to exist.

I reject their concept of 'cool'. And thus I judge them because they attach meaning to something I believe is meaningless

But to say that this concept is meaningless is to say that rejecting coolness is in itself a meaningful thing. By saying that their coolness has no meaning is to say that your concept is superior. Which it isnt, because existence isnt defined, and therefore has no meaning or concept which you can reject as meaningless.

However I do not accept it, as I believe pretending (though not absolutely) is a form of denial. Similar to what I mentioned before.

But there is nothing for you to deny. As I said before, to be able to deny something, that something has to be defined. Existence isnt defined, and therefore you can not deny it. There is no right or wrong way to exist....

I hope this isn't rude, but do you believe the world can be interpreted in terms of 'black and white'? What I mean, is that you have (at least in some cases) divided things into two spectrums. For exmaple, 'happiness' and 'unhappiness'. Surely you don't believe existence isn't as simple as that? I personally don't believe in absolutes (but not absolutely), even though that is an absolute concept in itself (confusing and contradictory I know, but we can't justify all our beliefs I guess, just my interpretation). Also, you said you don't pay rent or dont work. How do you survive and what do you do with your existence (I'm not bagging you, just wondering)? If you are a student, the second one may not apply.

Everything is black and white, only people choose to interperate it in shades of grey. You can choose to pay your rent or you can choose no too. You can choose to and then justify that action by saying you need too. You do not need to do anything. If this was the case, how could we wish to change society. I do not pay rent or work because those things are provided to me, with the humanitarian volunteering I am doing. Of course this will end soon, but there are things such as the Anarchist group in England who run squots. There are communities and collectives which people can live in. We have choices, just sometimes people can not always see them.

Pedro Alonso Lopez

24th April 2004, 15:51

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 24 2004, 03:19 PM
Nothing in what you provided refutes anything that freydis says. Alot of it reaffirms what he says...
How so?

leftist manson

24th April 2004, 18:04

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13 2004, 08:59 PM
Life is pointless, so all that is inbetween can only be about self gratification. I am questioning my reason for being here in Africa. People die, horribly. But if I give food to a family, I only prolong that life for a few more years at the expense of using my life which I waste in the persuit of what. What ultimatly does it achieve. Nothing.

Life is a series of moments and is very short. Therefore we must reject all that is in our minds and indulge only in that which makes us happy. Ignore your rent, ignore morality, ignore your jobs, ignore your beliefs, because ultimatly they mean nothing. Nothing exists. Only your perceptions. Do not think. Do not act. Do not accept rules or understand laws of logic.

Be hedonistic. Be immoral. Abuse your body and mind. Inject, smoke, drink, swallow and indulge in every intolerable act there is. Do not think or believe in anything. Go insane. Take your belongings for free and expect everything, because everything is yours...until you are dead.
man you can argue but i can't get why you are an anarchist.
i don't want to be mean but the guy on whose name this site exists , sacrificed his life for other people.
nihilism can be good but there is no point in living like just a radical hedonist and destroying all connections between all men

The Feral Underclass

24th April 2004, 18:49

Originally posted by leftist [email protected] 24 2004, 08:04 PM
man you can argue but i can't get why you are an anarchist.
i don't want to be mean but the guy on whose name this site exists , sacrificed his life for other people.
nihilism can be good but there is no point in living like just a radical hedonist and destroying all connections between all men
Actually, there is no meaning. So whether I was a hedonist or mother teresa it really dosn't matter...

Anyway, you should just do what makes you happy. Not what you think you are supposed to do...if giving makes you happy, then give, if taking xtc makes you happy, do it...Its up to you. Nothing is right and nothing is wrong.

Pedro Alonso Lopez

24th April 2004, 19:08

How so?

Can you answer this?

The Feral Underclass

24th April 2004, 19:23

I could, but it would be really boring for me to do it...read his article and then read your thing and they are not so different, if at all...

Pedro Alonso Lopez

24th April 2004, 19:37

Ok I'll do it so, may be in an hour or so though so bear with me.

che's long lost daughter

24th April 2004, 19:46

Then why are you in this site fighting for your beliefs when you know that what you are fighting for would be useless because as you said, we are all going to die eventually?

The Feral Underclass

24th April 2004, 19:49

good question...i guess because it makes me happy...

Pedro Alonso Lopez

24th April 2004, 20:00

Ok first of all counter order defines nihilism as:

A universal definition of nihilism could then well be the rejection of that which requires faith for salvation or actualization and would span to include anything from theology to secular ideology.

whereas The Internet Encycleopedia (IE from now on) defines it as:

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.

My immediate criticism of you claims that do they do not differ is that counterorder's definition allows any field thathas a foundation in say science or any field in which evidence can be used to back up claims as something you can adhere to whereas religion say requires faith.

By the IE definition however even science is useless as nothing can be known or communicated, so there can be faith or belief in nothing at all whereas counterorder allows some form of 'belief' in fact based fields of knowledge.

Moving on:

From the IE

A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.

whereas Counterorder view faith in a different manner, as a tool almost for avoiding facts:

Faith is an imperative hazard to group and individual because it compels suspension of reason, critical analysis and common sense

IE nihilism disallows your stance of anachism say and counterorder allows it. Surely you can see there are divergences here?

On Nietzsche ( who is used and abused more ;) )

Nietzsche once said that faith means not wanting to know. Faith is "don't let those pesky facts get in the way of our political plan or our mystically ordained path to heaven"; faith is "do what I tell you because I said so". All things that can't be disproved need faith, utopia needs faith, idealism needs faith, spiritual salvation needs faith. F**k faith.

This is counterorders extremely simplified misquoted but not really version of Nietzsche's view of nihilism which of course is pretty flimsy but for the purposes of showing the differences between the two sites, the above is from counterorder, the second is from IE:

nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history

CounterOrder taints Nietzsche as a nihilist wrongly whereas IE realises that his nihislstic nature only stands as a critique of modern society and would lead to a crisis of society without advocating nihilism, in fact he says Yes to life.

Further the historical viewpoint:

Counterorder 'informs' us!

The first nihilists were likely the Greek Sophists who lived about 2500 years ago. They used oratorical skills and argumentative discourse to destroy the values upon which everyday beliefs rested. However they were unable or unwilling to provide any constructive program to replace the old system. Needless to say it didn't take long before the sophists became highly unpopular and came to be perceived as threats to the establishment.

What the fuck! The Sophists were unpopular? Somebody needs to read their Plato, or even Aristophanes, anybody. The oratory skills of the sophists were in high demand, Gorgias for example was among the most respected members of Greek society. The above quote is utter bullshit, luckily IE provides a good account of nihilisms origons and also fortunate is that it comes up first in google so innocents wont be mislead:

The earliest philosophical positions associated with what could be characterized as a nihilistic outlook are those of the Skeptics. Because they denied the possibility of certainty, Skeptics could denounce traditional truths as unjustifiable opinions. When Demosthenes (c.371-322 BC), for example, observes that "What he wished to believe, that is what each man believes" (Olynthiac), he posits the relational nature of knowledge. Extreme skepticism, then, is linked to epistemological nihilism which denies the possibility of knowledge and truth; this form of nihilism is currently identified with postmodern antifoundationalism. Nihilism, in fact, can be understood in several different ways. Political Nihilism, as noted, is associated with the belief that the destruction of all existing political, social, and religious order is a prerequisite for any future improvement. Ethical nihilism or moral nihilism rejects the possibility of absolute moral or ethical values. Instead, good and evil are nebulous, and values addressing such are the product of nothing more than social and emotive pressures. Existential nihilism is the notion that life has no intrinsic meaning or value, and it is, no doubt, the most commonly used and understood sense of the word today.

Maybe he meant Sceptics and not sophists, either way the above account is another example of the divergences between both accounts of nihilism.

Ok now here is where is gets fun over at CounterOrder:

One of the earliest nihilistic writers of the modern era was the Dane Soren Aabye Kierkegaard who lived from 1813 to 1855. Kierkegaard was a truly unique but also enigmatic philosopher. His most important contribution was the philosophy of existentialism, which was in many ways a negation of the ruling Hegelian philosophy.

Anybody remember Kiekegaard giving us all existensialism, I remember him being branded one by say Kauffman maybe, maybe even Sartre a long time afterwords but hey, lets re-write the history of philosophy.

I can go on, there is plenty more absurdities over at that website. I dont even remember if I got at what I wanted but that website is more full of shit than I could ever have imagined.

che's long lost daughter

24th April 2004, 20:24

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 24 2004, 07:49 PM
good question...i guess because it makes me happy...
Well, that's really a nihilistic response. Are you really serious about what you are fighting for? Then you are not really fighting for anything if the reason for doing it is just because it makes you happy.

The Feral Underclass

24th April 2004, 20:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 10:00 PM
Ok first of all counter order defines nihilism as:

A universal definition of nihilism could then well be the rejection of that which requires faith for salvation or actualization and would span to include anything from theology to secular ideology.

whereas The Internet Encycleopedia (IE from now on) defines it as:

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.

My immediate criticism of you claims that do they do not differ is that counterorder's definition allows any field thathas a foundation in say science or any field in which evidence can be used to back up claims as something you can adhere to whereas religion say requires faith.

By the IE definition however even science is useless as nothing can be known or communicated, so there can be faith or belief in nothing at all whereas counterorder allows some form of 'belief' in fact based fields of knowledge.

Moving on:

From the IE

A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.

whereas Counterorder view faith in a different manner, as a tool almost for avoiding facts:

Faith is an imperative hazard to group and individual because it compels suspension of reason, critical analysis and common sense

IE nihilism disallows your stance of anachism say and counterorder allows it. Surely you can see there are divergences here?

On Nietzsche ( who is used and abused more ;) )

Nietzsche once said that faith means not wanting to know. Faith is "don't let those pesky facts get in the way of our political plan or our mystically ordained path to heaven"; faith is "do what I tell you because I said so". All things that can't be disproved need faith, utopia needs faith, idealism needs faith, spiritual salvation needs faith. F**k faith.

This is counterorders extremely simplified misquoted but not really version of Nietzsche's view of nihilism which of course is pretty flimsy but for the purposes of showing the differences between the two sites, the above is from counterorder, the second is from IE:

nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history

CounterOrder taints Nietzsche as a nihilist wrongly whereas IE realises that his nihislstic nature only stands as a critique of modern society and would lead to a crisis of society without advocating nihilism, in fact he says Yes to life.

Further the historical viewpoint:

Counterorder 'informs' us!

The first nihilists were likely the Greek Sophists who lived about 2500 years ago. They used oratorical skills and argumentative discourse to destroy the values upon which everyday beliefs rested. However they were unable or unwilling to provide any constructive program to replace the old system. Needless to say it didn't take long before the sophists became highly unpopular and came to be perceived as threats to the establishment.

What the fuck! The Sophists were unpopular? Somebody needs to read their Plato, or even Aristophanes, anybody. The oratory skills of the sophists were in high demand, Gorgias for example was among the most respected members of Greek society. The above quote is utter bullshit, luckily IE provides a good account of nihilisms origons and also fortunate is that it comes up first in google so innocents wont be mislead:

The earliest philosophical positions associated with what could be characterized as a nihilistic outlook are those of the Skeptics. Because they denied the possibility of certainty, Skeptics could denounce traditional truths as unjustifiable opinions. When Demosthenes (c.371-322 BC), for example, observes that "What he wished to believe, that is what each man believes" (Olynthiac), he posits the relational nature of knowledge. Extreme skepticism, then, is linked to epistemological nihilism which denies the possibility of knowledge and truth; this form of nihilism is currently identified with postmodern antifoundationalism. Nihilism, in fact, can be understood in several different ways. Political Nihilism, as noted, is associated with the belief that the destruction of all existing political, social, and religious order is a prerequisite for any future improvement. Ethical nihilism or moral nihilism rejects the possibility of absolute moral or ethical values. Instead, good and evil are nebulous, and values addressing such are the product of nothing more than social and emotive pressures. Existential nihilism is the notion that life has no intrinsic meaning or value, and it is, no doubt, the most commonly used and understood sense of the word today.

Maybe he meant Sceptics and not sophists, either way the above account is another example of the divergences between both accounts of nihilism.

Ok now here is where is gets fun over at CounterOrder:

One of the earliest nihilistic writers of the modern era was the Dane Soren Aabye Kierkegaard who lived from 1813 to 1855. Kierkegaard was a truly unique but also enigmatic philosopher. His most important contribution was the philosophy of existentialism, which was in many ways a negation of the ruling Hegelian philosophy.

Anybody remember Kiekegaard giving us all existensialism, I remember him being branded one by say Kauffman maybe, maybe even Sartre a long time afterwords but hey, lets re-write the history of philosophy.

I can go on, there is plenty more absurdities over at that website. I dont even remember if I got at what I wanted but that website is more full of shit than I could ever have imagined.
Im not going to argue with you because you obviously know more than I do on the subject...I couldnt refute your argument even if I wanted too...

Suffice it to say, I would bre greatful for some links to more on nihilism...

The Feral Underclass

24th April 2004, 20:53

Originally posted by che's long lost daughter+Apr 24 2004, 10:24 PM--> (che's long lost daughter @ Apr 24 2004, 10:24 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 24 2004, 07:49 PM
good question...i guess because it makes me happy...
Well, that's really a nihilistic response. Are you really serious about what you are fighting for? Then you are not really fighting for anything if the reason for doing it is just because it makes you happy. [/b]
Define serious.?

How many people do you know who are doing what makes them happy? I think what i believe is very important....

Pedro Alonso Lopez

24th April 2004, 23:38

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Apr 24 2004, 08:51 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Apr 24 2004, 08:51 PM)
[email protected] 24 2004, 10:00 PM
Ok first of all counter order defines nihilism as:

A universal definition of nihilism could then well be the rejection of that which requires faith for salvation or actualization and would span to include anything from theology to secular ideology.

whereas The Internet Encycleopedia (IE from now on) defines it as:

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.

My immediate criticism of you claims that do they do not differ is that counterorder's definition allows any field thathas a foundation in say science or any field in which evidence can be used to back up claims as something you can adhere to whereas religion say requires faith.

By the IE definition however even science is useless as nothing can be known or communicated, so there can be faith or belief in nothing at all whereas counterorder allows some form of 'belief' in fact based fields of knowledge.

Moving on:

From the IE

A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.

whereas Counterorder view faith in a different manner, as a tool almost for avoiding facts:

Faith is an imperative hazard to group and individual because it compels suspension of reason, critical analysis and common sense

IE nihilism disallows your stance of anachism say and counterorder allows it. Surely you can see there are divergences here?

On Nietzsche ( who is used and abused more ;) )

Nietzsche once said that faith means not wanting to know. Faith is "don't let those pesky facts get in the way of our political plan or our mystically ordained path to heaven"; faith is "do what I tell you because I said so". All things that can't be disproved need faith, utopia needs faith, idealism needs faith, spiritual salvation needs faith. F**k faith.

This is counterorders extremely simplified misquoted but not really version of Nietzsche's view of nihilism which of course is pretty flimsy but for the purposes of showing the differences between the two sites, the above is from counterorder, the second is from IE:

nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history

CounterOrder taints Nietzsche as a nihilist wrongly whereas IE realises that his nihislstic nature only stands as a critique of modern society and would lead to a crisis of society without advocating nihilism, in fact he says Yes to life.

Further the historical viewpoint:

Counterorder 'informs' us!

The first nihilists were likely the Greek Sophists who lived about 2500 years ago. They used oratorical skills and argumentative discourse to destroy the values upon which everyday beliefs rested. However they were unable or unwilling to provide any constructive program to replace the old system. Needless to say it didn't take long before the sophists became highly unpopular and came to be perceived as threats to the establishment.

What the fuck! The Sophists were unpopular? Somebody needs to read their Plato, or even Aristophanes, anybody. The oratory skills of the sophists were in high demand, Gorgias for example was among the most respected members of Greek society. The above quote is utter bullshit, luckily IE provides a good account of nihilisms origons and also fortunate is that it comes up first in google so innocents wont be mislead:

The earliest philosophical positions associated with what could be characterized as a nihilistic outlook are those of the Skeptics. Because they denied the possibility of certainty, Skeptics could denounce traditional truths as unjustifiable opinions. When Demosthenes (c.371-322 BC), for example, observes that "What he wished to believe, that is what each man believes" (Olynthiac), he posits the relational nature of knowledge. Extreme skepticism, then, is linked to epistemological nihilism which denies the possibility of knowledge and truth; this form of nihilism is currently identified with postmodern antifoundationalism. Nihilism, in fact, can be understood in several different ways. Political Nihilism, as noted, is associated with the belief that the destruction of all existing political, social, and religious order is a prerequisite for any future improvement. Ethical nihilism or moral nihilism rejects the possibility of absolute moral or ethical values. Instead, good and evil are nebulous, and values addressing such are the product of nothing more than social and emotive pressures. Existential nihilism is the notion that life has no intrinsic meaning or value, and it is, no doubt, the most commonly used and understood sense of the word today.

Maybe he meant Sceptics and not sophists, either way the above account is another example of the divergences between both accounts of nihilism.

Ok now here is where is gets fun over at CounterOrder:

One of the earliest nihilistic writers of the modern era was the Dane Soren Aabye Kierkegaard who lived from 1813 to 1855. Kierkegaard was a truly unique but also enigmatic philosopher. His most important contribution was the philosophy of existentialism, which was in many ways a negation of the ruling Hegelian philosophy.

Anybody remember Kiekegaard giving us all existensialism, I remember him being branded one by say Kauffman maybe, maybe even Sartre a long time afterwords but hey, lets re-write the history of philosophy.

I can go on, there is plenty more absurdities over at that website. I dont even remember if I got at what I wanted but that website is more full of shit than I could ever have imagined.
Im not going to argue with you because you obviously know more than I do on the subject...I couldnt refute your argument even if I wanted too...

Suffice it to say, I would bre greatful for some links to more on nihilism... [/b]

Ok maybe I was a bt pretentious there, so sorry if I was. I am a little drunk after having a bit of a jamming session so I'll have a look tomorrow for some good stuff.

I would like to warn you however that the counterorder sitew is a very dodgy one and is to be avoided!