Log in

View Full Version : Political Nihilism



redstar2000
11th May 2004, 04:56
The Anarchist Tension asked me to critique this website...or at least its opening statement.

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

Insofar as it is a defense of critical thinking about everything, I have no disagreement. We ought to reject faith and demand evidence and rational arguments for every proposition.

Beyond this commonplace (not common enough!) matters become murkier...


The second element nihilism rejects is the belief in final purpose, that the universe is built upon non-random events and that everything is structured towards an eventual conclusive revelation.

That's a tougher proposition -- partly because of the "loaded" terminology.

The universe is certainly random down at the quantum level...at least we've never been able to locate that definitive "cause and effect" that Einstein searched for in vain.

On the other hand, up at the cosmological level (again as far as we can tell), galaxies are not randomly distributed throughout the universe but instead are grouped in clusters, super-clusters (clusters of clusters), and even enormous "sheets" or "walls" of super-clusters...with vast empty spaces between. There is some kind of "order" there...though we don't (yet) know why.

Indeed, some have suggested that "order" randomly arises from the prevailing disorder.

Of course, that doesn't imply any kind of "eventual conclusive revelation". As far as we now know, the last stars will burn out in 100 billion years or so and all that will be left are black holes and wondering sub-atomic particles. Since Hawking demonstrated that even black holes eventually "evaporate", the remainder of "eternity" will eventually be nothing but randomly wondering sub-atomic particles, period.

Will or even can a "new order" arise from that? No one has even the faintest idea.

But the temporary order that does seem to "pop up" in the universe as it is now offers a "credible substitute" for "eternal and final purpose".


This is called teleology and it's the fatal flaw plaguing the whole rainbow of false solutions from Marxism to Buddhism and everything in between. Teleology compels obedience towards the fulfillment of "destiny" or "progress" or similar such grandiose goals. Teleology is used by despots and utopian dreamers alike as a coercive motivation leading only to yet another apocryphal apocalypse; the real way to lead humanity by the nose - tell them it's all part of the big plan so play along or else!

Yes, that's generally how it works, but is that "inevitable"?

There was certainly a time when the Leninist variant of "Marxism" based much of its appeal on "hitching a ride on history's locomotive"...especially when coupled with a vision of "communism" that resembled "Heaven" more than any earthly human society.

I think it could be reasonably argued that there are historical "regularities" (non-random events) that point towards the end of class society -- without suggesting that communism is "the eventual conclusive revelation" of human history.

Consider that the human species is around 150,000 years old. We've only been writing stuff down for the last 5,000 years. We've only been writing stuff down that made any sense for the last 500 years. And the average life-span of mammalian species is currently estimated at 8 million years.

I think it's safe to say that it's too soon to tell what the "eventual conclusive revelation" (if any) of human history will be.


Words used to describe political nihilism include - active, revolutionary, destructive and even creative. Political nihilism is defined as 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."

Brave words, indeed.

The reality is a bit more sobering. When one undertakes a work of destruction, bad things are going to happen. People will be hurt, feel pain, perhaps be crippled or even killed.

If you do this "without purpose", you are not going to feel very good about yourself...especially if you're close enough to get splattered by the gore.

It's customary to regard those who kill "without purpose" as sociopaths...and if we catch one, we execute him.


Political nihilism especially is a world-view that's rational, logical, empirical, scientific and devoid of pointless, extraneous emotion.

Except one: unlimited hatred for "things as they are". The nihilist who embraces destruction without regard for alternatives to the existing order has, in fact, abandoned rationality, logic, empiricism, and science...in favor of raw hatred.

There is much of "things as they are" that is fully worthy of hatred, no question about it. But without guidance of some alternative (no matter how implausible), destruction becomes a "quantum event"...no different from a bolt of lightning and no more damaging to the social order.

The Russian nihilists -- the most "political" of such groups ever to exist -- in fact did have a purpose. They thought that the assassination of the Czar and his prominent officials would "de-stabilize" the autocracy and eventually bring it down. It didn't work...though it may have helped in a small way.


Both modern nihilists and anarchists can trace roots to the intense personality of Mikhael Bakunin in the 19th century who succinctly reflected the nihilist sentiment with his famous statement: "Let us put our trust in the eternal spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unsearchable and eternally creative source of all."

The site does not date this rather mystical quote; I would assume it is from Bakunin's youth rather than his maturity.

But it certainly does have a "nihilist flavor" -- I think the modern abbreviation is something like "Destruction is a creative urge".

Whenever I torment the godsuckers on this board with graphic images of their precious and holy cathedrals falling to the wrecking ball, I'm doing the same thing...borrowing a nihilist vision as a symbol of creating a world without superstition.

I suspect that almost every idea for changing the world has a nihilist "sub-text" that is more or less explicit.

But a "sub-text" is "subordinate", not dominant. The purpose of destroying the old is to create the new...not simply to leave a landscape of ruin.

In fact, I think the modern political tendency that's closest to the original nihilist spirit is Nazism. I'm thinking of Hitler and his architect Speer, planning their massive post-war building programs and saying to each other "what magnificent ruins" their structures would eventually become. The point of building on a grand scale was really to create "magnificent ruins".

And then there was Goebbels: "When I hear the word culture, I reach for my revolver." Or, "Yes, we are barbarians." Or, "The year 1789 is hereby repealed."

Indeed, Hitler's final orders (not carried out) before his suicide were to destroy what was left of Germany's civilized infrastructure...to leave even greater desolation than had resulted from the Anglo-American terror-bombing of Germany's cities.

Could any consistent nihilist have wished for more?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

The Feral Underclass
11th May 2004, 06:36
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 06:56 AM
That's a tougher proposition -- partly because of the "loaded" terminology.

The universe is certainly random down at the quantum level...at least we've never been able to locate that definitive "cause and effect" that Einstein searched for in vain.

On the other hand, up at the cosmological level (again as far as we can tell), galaxies are not randomly distributed throughout the universe but instead are grouped in clusters, super-clusters (clusters of clusters), and even enormous "sheets" or "walls" of super-clusters...with vast empty spaces between. There is some kind of "order" there...though we don't (yet) know why.

Indeed, some have suggested that "order" randomly arises from the prevailing disorder.

Of course, that doesn't imply any kind of "eventual conclusive revelation". As far as we now know, the last stars will burn out in 100 billion years or so and all that will be left are black holes and wondering sub-atomic particles. Since Hawking demonstrated that even black holes eventually "evaporate", the remainder of "eternity" will eventually be nothing but randomly wondering sub-atomic particles, period.
Obviously you are not here to defend the statements in this website, but from this disection I don't see the relevance this thinking has?


When one undertakes a work of destruction, bad things are going to happen. People will be hurt, feel pain, perhaps be crippled or even killed.

If you do this "without purpose", you are not going to feel very good about yourself...especially if you're close enough to get splattered by the gore.

It's customary to regard those who kill "without purpose" as sociopaths...and if we catch one, we execute him.

Execute them? Is this really what nihilism is suggesting? Could not be viewed as a fact in and of itself rather than a statement of action.


Except one: unlimited hatred for "things as they are". The nihilist who embraces destruction without regard for alternatives to the existing order has, in fact, abandoned rationality, logic, empiricism, and science...in favor of raw hatred.

Are you saying that nihilism is built on a concept of hatred.I don't see that. Surely saying we "could" have something better is just applying hope, which is a subjective concept, to a desire which again is subjective. They aren't based on any fact. It is no better than saying "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." Only by saying that you are removing subjective concepts which ultimatly don't mean anything.


There is much of "things as they are" that is fully worthy of hatred, no question about it. But without guidance of some alternative (no matter how implausible), destruction becomes a "quantum event"...no different from a bolt of lightning and no more damaging to the social order.

What is humanity? Why is humanity so important that we must be constructive or have guidance. Why is one guidance more rational or acceptable than another. It is all subjective.


The site does not date this rather mystical quote; I would assume it is from Bakunin's youth rather than his maturity.

I like it.....as you can see in my signiture.


Could any consistent nihilist have wished for more?

I don't think that political nihilism completely accepts that we should destroy everything. I think it accepts that any alternative is not a truth, and that really destruction is equally as acceptable as creation. None of it means anything anyway.

Osman Ghazi
12th May 2004, 01:24
I don't understand the point of political nihilism. If the nihilists didn't care one way or another what happened, why would they try to assassinate the tsar? Let's put it this way: What did they have to gain?

redstar2000
12th May 2004, 03:53
Execute them? Is this really what nihilism is suggesting?

You misunderstood me. It would be the consistent nihilist who would be killing without purpose (except hatred of the existing social order)...and would be regarded by most people as sociopathic.


Surely saying we "could" have something better is just applying hope, which is a subjective concept, to a desire which again is subjective.

Maybe, maybe not. One might start with the subjective "desire" for "something better" -- but if one could demonstrate by argument and evidence that "something better" was an objective possibility, then "subjectivity" would not be relevant.


What is humanity? Why is humanity so important that we must be constructive or have guidance? Why is one guidance more rational or acceptable than another?

1. Humanity is us.

2. Being constructive results in a more pleasant existence than not being so.

3. Having a plan, even a bad one, usually works better than having no plan at all.

4. The merits of any given plan are subject to evidence and argument.


It is all subjective.

Maybe, maybe not...it depends on the specifics.


I don't think that political nihilism completely accepts that we should destroy everything. I think it accepts that any alternative is not a truth, and that really destruction is equally as acceptable as creation. None of it means anything anyway.

I don't think nihilism means anything useful as a coherent set of "ideas".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

The Feral Underclass
12th May 2004, 12:14
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 05:53 AM

Execute them? Is this really what nihilism is suggesting?

You misunderstood me. It would be the consistent nihilist who would be killing without purpose (except hatred of the existing social order)...and would be regarded by most people as sociopathic.


Surely saying we "could" have something better is just applying hope, which is a subjective concept, to a desire which again is subjective.

Maybe, maybe not. One might start with the subjective "desire" for "something better" -- but if one could demonstrate by argument and evidence that "something better" was an objective possibility, then "subjectivity" would not be relevant.


What is humanity? Why is humanity so important that we must be constructive or have guidance? Why is one guidance more rational or acceptable than another?

1. Humanity is us.

2. Being constructive results in a more pleasant existence than not being so.

3. Having a plan, even a bad one, usually works better than having no plan at all.

4. The merits of any given plan are subject to evidence and argument.


It is all subjective.

Maybe, maybe not...it depends on the specifics.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
:o ... :P

Don't lok so shocked. I asked you to critque it so I could better understand it. You did that. You answered my points, and now I understand it better than I did.

Moral_Imbalance
26th June 2005, 23:25
You guys seem to be missing one of the key elements of Nihilism........ the denial of morals......we nihilist do not believe in Good or evil.........we also do not believe in the absolute goodness of man kind as Anarchists seem to do......
I suggest full understanding Nihilism before u go to critic it........
We are very similar to the anarchist.........
we wish to see the absense of goverment and authority.
though we do not see peace as an achievable option......

Not all nihilists support the destruction of the current society in favor for starting over again.
Some wish to achieve a new society through the system.......
though i dont see this as possible........


The reality is a bit more sobering. When one undertakes a work of destruction, bad things are going to happen. People will be hurt, feel pain, perhaps be crippled or even killed.

If you do this "without purpose", you are not going to feel very good about yourself...especially if you're close enough to get splattered by the gore.

It's customary to regard those who kill "without purpose" as sociopaths...and if we catch one, we execute him.

Destruction dosent always mean death destruction and pain....
though this can happen it makes no diffrence...... a world without what you consider bad feelings and actions is impossible........

it seems that you would like to kill this "sociopath" because u fear he may hurt or kill you or someone u love.........
Accpet the fact that u are going to die........
Just because u have taken one of your possibly killers away dosent mean youre any safer....
Just by getting up in the morning u put your life in danger at any moment somthing could happen ending your life........
Why do u feel u must end another to prevent the inevitable?

I ask u one thing......... when all your ideas fail what will u turn to?

redstar2000
27th June 2005, 00:30
Originally posted by Moral Imbalance
a world without what you consider bad feelings and actions is impossible........

You understand that communists and anarchists have been informed that what we want "is impossible" for the last 150 years or so...so your assertion of this "truth" is unlikely to meet with much appreciation or even interest.

What we want is a human society in which "bad feelings and actions" are reduced to a level far below what routinely exists now.

That is something "worth trying for" even if it never succeeds.


it seems that you would like to kill this "sociopath" because you fear he may hurt or kill you or someone you love.........
Accept the fact that you are going to die........
Just because you have taken one of your possible killers away doesn't mean you're any safer....
Just by getting up in the morning you put your life in danger; at any moment something could happen ending your life........
Why do you feel you must end another to prevent the inevitable?

Because it seems to be a part of "human nature" not to just curl up and "accept the inevitable". Even primitive monkeys try to manipulate their environment to suit their own preferences...and we are the smartest fucking monkeys that ever lived!

At any time, any given individual may well "curl up and die" -- "surrender to the inevitable" -- as a species, we're not having it.


I ask you one thing......... when all your ideas fail what will you turn to?

There's much to be said for alcohol. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Pawn Power
27th June 2005, 00:48
We've only been writing stuff down that made any sense for the last 500 years.

What about the Greek philosophers?



2. Being constructive results in a more pleasant existence than not being so.

We can all agree, as atheists, that when its all said and done our lives are futile and virtually irrelevant. However I do agree that being ‘constructive’ in one sense or the other makes life as it is, more enjoyable. You can argue that it does not make a difference in the end, however it does make a difference in day to day life. And what do we have if not that.


Just because u have taken one of your possibly killers away dosent mean youre any safer....

I think it is reasonable to say that the less sociopaths in society the safer you are, even if it is a small percentage.

Moral_Imbalance
27th June 2005, 00:55
Because it seems to be a part of "human nature" not to just curl up and "accept the inevitable". Even primitive monkeys try to manipulate their environment to suit their own preferences...and we are the smartest fucking monkeys that ever lived!

At any time, any given individual may well "curl up and die" -- "surrender to the inevitable" -- as a species, we're not having it.

This is exactly my point if we need to struggle to stay alive.......
but there is a diffrence between executing someone to prevent it from happening and defending urself when it happens..........

We Nihilist want a world where ther is no longer a set rule or regulation where u do not
where u are free to do what u wish without repremand from a governing stucture or its minions.......

we want Freedom to the highest level achievable.........
we want no one to tell us what is wrong or right for that judgment lies in relativity.....
I say let the sociopath live and if he comes after u then it will be dealt with then....
by you........not by an overwhelming group of non effected entitys....


You understand that communists and anarchists have been informed that what we want "is impossible" for the last 150 years or so...so your assertion of this "truth" is unlikely to meet with much appreciation or even interest.

What we want is a human society in which "bad feelings and actions" are reduced to a level far below what routinely exists now.

That is something "worth trying for" even if it never succeeds.

I was not refering to the overall concept of anarchism or communism. i was refering to a world with out any of your bad actions of emotions.........

what u wish for is entirely possible and can be achieved..........
We Nihilist just want more......... We go a step beyond Anarchism...........
We want freedom with no bounds......... as long as a moral and ethical code exists there cant be the form of freedom we desire...........

redstar2000
27th June 2005, 02:54
Originally posted by Moral Imbalance
...but there is a difference between executing someone to prevent it from happening and defending yourself when it happens...

I'm not sure I grasp your point here. I'm not in favor of "preventive execution" of anyone because I think they might be a sociopath -- although if we ever discovered a really reliable "genetic marker" for sociopathy, it would make sense to abort any fetuses displaying that marker.

But I'm speaking of someone who has already demonstrated a propensity for unprovoked violence...some individual who has already killed, raped, violently assaulted someone.

I see nothing to be gained by warehousing such a person for 50 or more years in prison. And releasing such a person back into the population is, in my view, an unacceptable gamble.

Thus, I say shoot the bastard and good riddance.

The point is to make sure that he never does it again.


We want freedom with no bounds......... as long as a moral and ethical code exists there can't be the form of freedom we desire...........

Well, that's a logical contradiction. Lots of people think an ethical "code" is a good idea...how can you stop them from thinking that or acting on that?

You can argue specifics -- when someone says "X is good", you can come back and say "X is bad" and, if you have a strong argument, people will agree and the idea that "X is good" will eventually die out.

But if you say that the idea of "good and bad" is itself a bad idea...people will have no grasp of what you intend or want to accomplish.

The proposition that there's "no such thing" as "good" and "bad" is contradicted by daily experience -- people can readily imagine good experiences and good behavior as well as the opposite of those things.

It may well be an objectively accurate observation that all behavior is, in a fundamental sense, ethically neutral -- there are no gods and the universe, not being sentient, does not give a rat's ass what we do.

Nevertheless, if we see some asshole kicking a puppy, we know that he's an asshole.

And, unless we are assholes ourselves, we make him stop.

And that's the end of "freedom with no bounds".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Moral_Imbalance
27th June 2005, 03:15
U wish for freedom but deny others their on the basis that theirs is bad or not to your likeing..........
What makes u god to say who can or cannot do sumthing..........


. I'm not in favor of "preventive execution" of anyone

Thus, I say shoot the bastard and good riddance.

The point is to make sure that he never does it again

you've just contradicted yourself...........



Well, that's a logical contradiction. Lots of people think an ethical "code" is a good idea...how can you stop them from thinking that or acting on that?

Through the absense of moral and ethical codes their is no longer a good or evil.....
when we think in terms of good and evil we set ourselves up for our concense to subcontiously create rules for.

To achieve The lvl of freedom im we're after u need to destroy that lawmaker and all others like it


Nevertheless, if we see some asshole kicking a puppy, we know that he's an asshole.

And, unless we are assholes ourselves, we make him stop.

And that's the end of "freedom with no bounds".

that is still freedom withn no bounds........ there is no law saying he cant kick the dog.... its just u telling him he cant........ he wont go to jail or be executed or fined....
there may be a fist fight and u go on with ur lives...........
but in a non moral mind set you see the dog and wonder to yourself y hes kicking the dog.....is he training it..........or is he hitting it to take out his frustration......... then u decide to act upon it from your conclusion.........

JC1
27th June 2005, 03:55
you've just contradicted yourself...........


He just said he opposes preventitive execution. But if some one commits a grave crime ... boom.

redstar2000
27th June 2005, 04:16
Originally posted by Moral Imbalance
You wish for freedom but deny others theirs on the basis that theirs is bad or not to your liking...What makes you god to say who can or cannot do something...

My ability to convince others that I'm right -- what else?

I offer arguments and evidence that my view of freedom is "the best one"...and people decide if my arguments are sound and my evidence valid or not.


You've just contradicted yourself...

Nope...you just didn't read carefully. Once someone has shown that they are a sociopath, only then do I advocate action to make sure he never does it again.


When we think in terms of good and evil we set ourselves up for our conscience to subconsciously create rules for [us].

I think we should consciously "make rules" for ourselves...rules that must withstand the tests of reason and evidence.

"Don't smoke marijuana" is an unreasonable "rule".

"Don't attack people with violence or the threat of violence unless in self-defense" is a reasonable "rule".


There is no law saying he can't kick the dog....it's just you telling him he can't...he won't go to jail or be executed or fined...

I do not imagine there will be much in the way of "law" in communist/anarchist societies, but there will certainly be customs.

And I imagine one of the customs will be that deliberate cruelty to small animals will be widely-considered to be a shitty thing to do and the person who does that will be considered a shit.

I would certainly vote to exile this jerk...if we could find some place that would accept his sorry ass.

I do not defend the "freedom to kick puppies".

If, on the other hand, you do...then you might ask yourself why people generally have a low opinion of nihilism.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

The Feral Underclass
27th June 2005, 15:39
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 11:25 PM
Nihilism........ the denial of morals......we nihilist do not believe in Good or evil.........
The origins of Nihilism would suggest differently. The rejection of morals was not a rejection of human interaction; it was a rejection of irrational and unfounded human laws of interaction. Nihilists want to destroy society because they ultimately think it's "bad".


we also do not believe in the absolute goodness of man kind as Anarchists seem to do......

Human beings are sociable animals. As of yet there is no irrefutable proof to say that humans are inherently good, but neither is their irrefutable evidence to suggest the opposite.

However, living in solidarity is far more desirable to the survival and development of ourselves than division, and what is wrong with desire?


we do not see peace as an achievable option......

Then you assert that humans are in fact inherently bad? Or do you claim that human beings are incapable of rational thought?


Not all nihilists support the destruction of the current society in favour for starting over again.
Some wish to achieve a new society through the system.......
though i dont see this as possible........

And what is this system you wish to create?


We Nihilist want a world where ther is no longer a set rule or regulation where u does not
where u are free to do what u wish without repremand from a governing stucture or its minions.......

But you have said that human beings cannot live in peace? This would then mean that I could rape your baby, gut your wife and then burn down your house?


we want Freedom to the highest level achievable........

Unfortunately you fall into a contradiction. Having the highest level of freedom achievable means that you can have your freedom restricted by someone else. If I was free to do what I wanted then I could, hypothetically, stop you from being free, in which case you wouldn't have any freedom at all, let alone the highest level achievable.


we want no one to tell us what is wrong or right for that judgment lies in relativity.....

This is a vulgar interpretation of Nihilism!

Nihilism rejects "wrong" or "right" as untruths but that does not mean you should accept relativity as a guide to human interaction.


I say let the sociopath live and if he comes after u then it will be dealt with then....
by you........not by an overwhelming group of non effected entitys....

Why does the sociopath exist in the first place?


We Nihilist just want more......... We go a step beyond Anarchism...........

Not at all!

Political Nihilism is simply an extension of the existential notion of futility; formed and moulded into a programme of societal interaction.

It is the philosophy turned into day-to-day life. Nihilism represents the end of days, when humanity realises it's own lonliness and futility and, as you say, creates a structure of unlimited freedom, which cannot exist..

Nihilism does not go "beyond anarchism" it merely replaces optimism with futility and admittedly for no reason.


as long as a moral and ethical code exists there cant be the form of freedom we desire...........

If this was to happen, right now in society, what do you think would be the outcome?

I agree that morality and ethics of any nature hold no ultimate truth, but there is a system of rationality to certain "ideas" which make them more desirable than others.

Creating a system based on fairness, equality and peace is far more desirable than creating a system of unfairness, inequality and violence. In fact, these very material realities constitute a lack of freedom. How can your "Nihilism" justify that?

Unfortunately in order to create freedom people have to be "taught" fairness, equality and peace. These things must exist as a prerequisite to freedom and in order for people to understand those concepts they must accept a certain code. A code of logic.

Moral_Imbalance
27th June 2005, 18:11
The origins of Nihilism would suggest differently. The rejection of morals was not a rejection of human interaction; it was a rejection of irrational and unfounded human laws of interaction. Nihilists want to destroy society because they ultimately think it's "bad".

excuse me let me be me specific......
We dont not see the need for definitions of good and evil for the concept is relative...


Human beings are sociable animals. As of yet there is no irrefutable proof to say that humans are inherently good, but neither is their irrefutable evidence to suggest the opposite.

However, living in solidarity is far more desirable to the survival and development of ourselves than division, and what is wrong with desire?


Who said there was anything wrong with it?


Then you assert that humans are in fact inherently bad? Or do you claim that human beings are incapable of rational thought?

No, only that there will always be confrontation and that peace seems unachievable in a free enviroment. If everyone can do as they may..... then this may and most likely include murder and violence.....
unless u speak of peace as in no war....then i agree with u if we demolish all nations we may be able to rid ourselves of war.........


And what is this system you wish to create?

Thats just it we do not want a system......... we want no governing or athority we want the destruction of artifical law....


But you have said that human beings cannot live in peace? This would then mean that I could rape your baby, gut your wife and then burn down your house?

If u so wished yes...... though if i wished after you were through raping guting and burning i could find you and kill you........ if everyone is put on the same lvl and there is no protection other tha yourslef it seems less likely that u will kill someone if they can turn around and kill u......

Take this hypothetical situation...........

We take 30 people and put them in a room with two sides seperated by a metal jail door(the one with bars) give each of them a fully loaded pistol and explain the whatever happens in the room they will not be repremanded for it once the leave.
Once evryone is split evenly between the to cells we leave them alone....

Now what do u assume will happen?
If someone shots someone else most of the people will either cap the killer or cower in fear of being shot.... the reason for shootin the killer is to eliminate the threat to their own existance and in effect setting an example that if your a threat to my life u will be shot.......
im most cases it would seem that nothing else would happen that other would repremand them for......

u see if everyone is brought down to the same level its is entirely possible to remain with some form of order.........

Just because u can do somthing dosent mean u will............


Unfortunately you fall into a contradiction. Having the highest level of freedom achievable means that you can have your freedom restricted by someone else. If I was free to do what I wanted then I could, hypothetically, stop you from being free, in which case you wouldn't have any freedom at all, let alone the highest level achievable.

If u did try to take away my freedom (which i dont see how this is possible) i would then have to either kill u or overthrow u...... depending how u reliquished me of my freedom........



Political Nihilism is simply an extension of the existential notion of futility; formed and moulded into a programme of societal interaction.

It is the philosophy turned into day-to-day life. Nihilism represents the end of days, when humanity realises it's own lonliness and futility and, as you say, creates a structure of unlimited freedom, which cannot exist..

Nihilism does not go "beyond anarchism" it merely replaces optimism with futility and admittedly for no reason.

You seem to be refering to social Nihilism.... "Existential nihilism is a passive world view which revolves around such topics as suffering, and futility, and even has connections to Eastern mysticism like Buddhism. In a more direct sense, existential 'social' nihilism is manifest within the sense of isolation, futility, angst and the hopelessness of existence increasingly prevalent within the modern digital world sometimes referred to as the 'downward spiral'. A direct way to describe it might be 'detachment from everything'."

"Political nihilism is defined as 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." It deals with authority and social structures rather than simply the introspective, personal emotions of existential nihilism.

Political nihilism especially is a world-view that's rational, logical, empirical, scientific and devoid of pointless, extraneous emotion. It's the logical psyche that distills everything down into what is known, what can be known and what can't be known. It's the realization that all values are ultimately relativistic and in some ways the simplicity of nihilism is its own complexity."


If this was to happen, right now in society, what do you think would be the outcome?

I agree that morality and ethics of any nature hold no ultimate truth, but there is a system of rationality to certain "ideas" which make them more desirable than others.

Creating a system based on fairness, equality and peace is far more desirable than creating a system of unfairness, inequality and violence. In fact, these very material realities constitute a lack of freedom. How can your "Nihilism" justify that?

Unfortunately in order to create freedom people have to be "taught" fairness, equality and peace. These things must exist as a prerequisite to freedom and in order for people to understand those concepts they must accept a certain code. A code of logic.

I have adressed this in my previous statement anout the 30 some people and jail cells........

The Feral Underclass
29th June 2005, 12:12
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 06:11 PM
excuse me let me be me specific......
We dont not see the need for definitions of good and evil for the concept is relative...
You are arguing for a lack of code to human interaction. Being that "good" and "evil" are relative, you assert that any restriction on the relative interpretations of those things should not exist.

I am saying that there is a logical process to understanding what is and what is not desirable and this negates in total your life by relativity.


No, only that there will always be confrontation and that peace seems unachievable in a free enviroment. If everyone can do as they may..... then this may and most likely include murder and violence.....

First of all, you cannot achieve the freedom you are talking about. It's a contradiction that I'm certain you cannot reconcile.

Secondly, why does confrontation "likely include murder and violence."? Do you accept that humans can be rational in the face of confrontation?

By your life of relativity I could just kill someone because I felt like it and for no other purpose? But that's not a reason? People don't just want to kill people unless they have a motive or psychological disorder.

Unless you have proof, freedom does not equate to violence. Maybe if it was to happen right now, but this it why it is far more desirable to seek out an alternative.


unless u speak of peace as in no war....then i agree with u if we demolish all nations we may be able to rid ourselves of war.........

I’m using the word peace to mean; respect for each other and a passion for the absurd opportunity forced on us.


Thats just it we do not want a system......... we want no governing or athority we want the destruction of artifical law....

How do you expect to be fed? Clothed? Housed? How do you expect the sewages to be empted and your rubbish disposed of?



But you have said that human beings cannot live in peace? This would then mean that I could rape your baby, gut your wife and then burn down your house?

If u so wished yes...... though if i wished after you were through raping guting and burning i could find you and kill you........

Why would you want such a society?


if everyone is put on the same lvl and there is no protection other tha yourslef it seems less likely that u will kill someone if they can turn around and kill u......

But we could live in a society where the fear of being murdered, or starving and isolation do not exist? Surely it is more desirable to have the opposite of this?


[We take 30 people and put them in a room with two sides seperated by a metal jail door(the one with bars) give each of them a fully loaded pistol and explain the whatever happens in the room they will not be repremanded for it once the leave.
Once evryone is split evenly between the to cells we leave them alone....

Now what do u assume will happen?
If someone shots someone else most of the people will either cap the killer or cower in fear of being shot.... the reason for shootin the killer is to eliminate the threat to their own existance and in effect setting an example that if your a threat to my life u will be shot.......
im most cases it would seem that nothing else would happen that other would repremand them for......

But you assume that someone would shoot and kill in the first place?

If I were in this situation I'd first of all demand to know why? The rational conclusion of such a situation is to not kill each other and to work together to get out of a cell.

The defence of life, you assert here, is a completely selfish and individual one. You describe the present situation. But it is not necessarily a situation that people want, or desire.


u see if everyone is brought down to the same level its is entirely possible to remain with some form of order.........

But completely pointless when there are other alternatives which are far better.


Just because u can do somthing dosent mean u will............

In most cases, just because you can do something it doesn't mean you[d want to. Would you rape and kill someone if you could?


If u did try to take away my freedom (which i dont see how this is possible) i would then have to either kill u or overthrow u...... depending how u reliquished me of my freedom........

You cannot have freedom if others can stop people from being free. Freedom for all, means that freedom is restricted. It's simply a fact and a fortunate one. I am free to do what I want, unless it restricts or encroaches on the freedom of others. In this way, you create a society of respect, which creates rationality.

It's a far more desirable society to live in than the chaotic and potentially violent society you adhere to achieving.


"Existential nihilism is a passive world view


Political nihilism especially is a world-view that's rational, logical, empirical, scientific and devoid of pointless, extraneous emotion.

Logical and rational to what? Certainly not the progression or survival of the human race!

I agree that we should create a society devoid of pointless emotion. But I don't think having an emotion against raping and killing a child is pointless.

Faceless
29th June 2005, 12:53
I found this on the nihilist's website which amuses me and shows up two very superficial ideologies:


What's the difference between nihilism and anarchism? Anarchism is against government, the idea being that all government is repressive and should be abolished. To a nihilist government is just a symptom it's the icing on the cake it's secondary no tertiary to what really matters. If all one is concerned with is tyrannical rule, if that's all you want to solve go for it but you won't ever make any permanent change because your pulling up the weeds and leaving the roots in the ground. Nihilism is fundamentally much more significant because it strikes at the roots it strikes at morality.

I want to make clear, that whilst I am not anarchist, the following branding is not one I make against all anarchists, but only the more vulgar ones out there.

The above statement about anarchists is true to some extent, there are anarchists who perceive the state as being the limiting factor on human nature which underlies all others. However, it is not morality either which is the "root" of the problem. Nietzsche, a somewhat more intelligent nihilist as concerns morality than whoever wrote that website, described morality as herd instinct in the individual. Which is correct. Herds form to survive and create morality which taboos certain things to help with the functioning of society. These remain taboos however even in circumstances which do not harm society in any meaningful sense. Hence, morality is herd instinct within the individual and is not a judgement based upon collective well-being. However, it is not the problem. To dismiss this as "morality" and thus as irrational overlookd the material cause of morality and its often progressive role. The causes are evidently economic and more often than not reflect the "common sense" values of the new ruling class. Puritan christian morality developed an ascetic morality in line with capitalist concepts of "save not spend", this is only one example. Others serve more universal functions such as the morality of inbreeding. Whilst it is irrational when we consider sex between siblings who say wear a condom, inbreeding for procreation creates genetic flaws which are collectively harmful. Whilst I expect even the most fanatical nihilist will agree with me that this particular form of morality is irrational, I doubt they would admitt to inbreeding. The fact is that the prevailent mode of production is the cause and effect of morality and the state, for which only marxism allows a coherent understanding.

Ifoughtthelawandiwon
29th June 2005, 15:19
If you think the idea of good and bad is a bad idea then that is self contradictory as you are demonstrating that you think something is a bad dea and you seem to be against that! :ph34r:

Ifoughtthelawandiwon
29th June 2005, 15:40
Far from causing less freedom, these 'laws' in society help people to work together and this creates more freedom. For example the freedom to build a huge building if you were so inclined or the freedom to fly quickly and efficiently to a hot country on holiday. If people had no laws this would not be possible as the pilot or constuctors would not be inclined to work in cooperation wuith you. Total freedom is not total at all as there are always things you cannot do, wether it be restricted by law or by impossibility as you cant get people to work together. Why do you need total freedom anyway? Wouldnt striving for total happiness be a more worthwhile activity? as thats all people care about essentially, being happy. you can be happy and have very little freedom, but as long as you are happy you will not care. Happiness should be strived for not freedom, and socialism in its many forms is the most plausable scientific way yet formulated to produce the greatest amount of happiness for the most people (utilitarianism).

Moral_Imbalance
1st July 2005, 20:51
Why do you need total freedom anyway? Wouldnt striving for total happiness be a more worthwhile activity? as thats all people care about essentially, being happy. you can be happy and have very little freedom, but as long as you are happy you will not care. Happiness should be strived for not freedom, and socialism in its many forms is the most plausable scientific way yet formulated to produce the greatest amount of happiness for the most people (utilitarianism)

You Want Total happiness..........Become Blissfuly Ignorant...........


If you think the idea of good and bad is a bad idea then that is self contradictory as you are demonstrating that you think something is a bad dea and you seem to be against that!

We Cant not Deny InDividual Morality.........WE deny regional And religous Morality....

Bazarov0
1st July 2005, 22:28
If you think the idea of good and bad is a bad idea then that is self contradictory as you are demonstrating that you think something is a bad dea and you seem to be against that! We don't think its a bad idea, both good and bad and traditional values contradict each other because what one applies to being good is based on there feelings but feelings don't hold any truth. More than just feelings it is also imagination, but indulgence in subjective nothingness. Objectivity is impossible. I don't think the idea of good and bad is a bad idea, many might love having the fantasy world of ethics and traditional value because it allows them be to narcissitic as applied to there feelings and subjective fantasies, which make it more easy for them to have faith that there values that rose from their feelings were objective, it only makes it objective in their mind. Again Nihilists don't believe in any good or bad. Value isn't inescapable, but Nihilists still have a devaluation of all value.

Far from causing less freedom, these 'laws' in society help people to work together and this creates more freedom.What is freedom? Do you believe it to be some higher state? But when they work together are they free from responsibility for the work they do? Are they free from subjective faith based fantasy of achieving a higher state or purpose thanks to the teleology of communism? No, there is no freedom , absolute freedom is impossible, but total control is impossible as well. But, what you measure freedom and control as also requires the concoction of a subjective concepts. Freedom is in death.

Moral_Imbalance
1st July 2005, 23:08
I must Correct a previous statment i made in this thread
i said earlier that i was after 100% undilluted freedom......
i have come to the conclusion that liberty, that is pure freedom is impossible and will only be achieved through death as Bazarov0 says....

OleMarxco
1st July 2005, 23:43
Wanna see "political" nihilism? HERE YA GO;
You got SERVED. (http://www.DurdenforAmerica.com)
So consider yourself so... Tyler Durden-clones ;)
http://www.durdenforamerica.com/crimepoverty.jpg
As the man says :o

Moral_Imbalance
2nd July 2005, 02:51
Wanna see "political" nihilism? HERE YA GO;
You got SERVED.
So consider yourself so... Tyler Durden-clones

What are u getting at? We dont Worship The Guy.
he has some Nihlist qualitys.....
Thats more of a social comment than anything else...
Congratulations on not knowing your material......