Why are Fight Club and Donnie Darko so praised? [Archive]

fernando

29th May 2004, 16:33

the only thing I've heard from you is "these are overrated movies" give some arguments?

I love Fight Club because it shows that society truly is this fucked up, we consume and obey and dont resist, here they resist.

Donnie Darko...that is a very trippy movie, pretty cool, it's better than most movies which have been released lately, I like the "small-ness" of it, I mean they dont use millions and millions of dollars to make it look ultra gigantic big, and the movie doesnt take 2 and a half hours (like many movies now seem to take)

robob8706

29th May 2004, 16:41

Here's my argument. Donnie Darko was ok, but the plot was so random that it didnt really make sense. Fight club was ok, but the plot was kind of boring until he finds out that brad pitts character wasnt real, which i predicted so that probably brought down my liking of this movie. The whole thing about how we consume too much, well yea...ed nortons character throws everything he has away to live in some crappy house etc etc....its just so bleak that its boring.

Pedro Alonso Lopez

29th May 2004, 17:54

Ok first of all the plot is interesting for the simple fact that you have a series of interesting but plausble events, Jack's crying only in support groups is highly origanal, the idea it is possible to simply give the pretence of your boss being a prick to earn money, his inside knowledge with the cars is humourous. The interaction with Marla is also quite good, she is a pretty damn good character by todays standards.

So what if he throws away a nice apartments, what did he gain from it? Nothing everything he owned kept him from living a real life, his possesions possessed him.

The crappy house means he no longer has responsibilites, he can be a man again. It is also a reaction agains the idea of progress and a need for recognition in the post capitalist anonymous age.

It's quite interesting, I am surprised how litte you read into the film...

MiniOswald

29th May 2004, 19:43

great things about fight club, striking out against the secret invader-sewdish furniture, DAMN YOU IKEA!

oh and i think the thing where they change the plane safety handouts is pretty cool

Sideshow Luke Perry

2nd June 2004, 13:52

It shows how far people can go when they feel society has absolutely nothing to offer them. I don't agree with the conclusions they draw, but absolutely understand them, and think the film is brilliantly structured, plotted and acted. The commentary on the DVD (Pitt, Norton and Fincher) is fascinating and funny too.

cubist

2nd June 2004, 15:41

fight club is a fantastic film, i like the have you ever thought GOD DOESN'T Like you bit, its an eye opener to different concept,

Chad King

3rd June 2004, 04:42

I havent seen Donnie Darco... but as for Fight Club... what I really like about it, is the super detail in the movie, thats what I look for in movies, details that force you to pay attention to the movie so you catch it all...

Maaja

3rd June 2004, 14:22

Fight Club was obligatory at my school! The funniest thing is that it was on FRench literature class that we had to watch it. My teacher found it the greatest film on earth and he was sure it was made about a French writer Nerval. I liked it a bit, I have to admit because it was different from most of the Hollywood movies but I don't really praise it.

perceptÂ¡on

3rd June 2004, 16:58

Fight Club is a deep ass film. You can watch it 100 times and learn something new every time. And the multiple personality thing was just a minor part of the story, if that's all you picked up on you missed a lot.

Basically Tyler is 'Jack' rebelling against his father (and hence God).

Ziggy

3rd June 2004, 19:39

whoever made that movie just pulled like random ideas out of his ass and made it all wacked out just to tie the ideas together
Donnie Darko is in no way random ideas pulled out of the director’s ass. There may be multiple sub plots but if you actually watch the movie, you'll see each one was affected by Donnie’s choices. in the end he chose to stay in his room and die thus saving his sister's, mother's, Frank's and his girlfriend's lives. His English teacher would also keep her job. There were negative affects as well; the Patrick Swayze character wouldn’t be arrested for kiddie porn. All the sub plots were connected through Donnie and his actions. I can't wait for the director's cut of Donnie Darko this summer; it'll shed new light on the movie

As for fight club, this movie is a brilliant portrayal of the disenchantment tht faces people. through fight club these men are able to break the continuous strain that faces them every day. they are able to free themselves from the cubicle, from the home, from the lies they were promised, personally i much prefer the book though the movie is still excellent

Saint-Just

3rd June 2004, 20:02

I think that Fight Club was a good film. However, the excessive and indiscriminate violence overshadowed that. They rebelled by sending each other to hospital in pointless brawls; I don't think people should be watching that.

Borincano

13th June 2004, 01:25

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 3 2004, 02:02 PM
I think that Fight Club was a good film. However, the excessive and indiscriminate violence overshadowed that. They rebelled by sending each other to hospital in pointless brawls; I don't think people should be watching that.
I agree. On one side, the movie could've portrayed a society gone awry and one man's struggle to escape his blue collar capitalist life without the street brawling, but you can also look at the fighting as the product of such a society's structure with the message, simply put, "society's fucked up!" lol! I liked the movie, but the double personality aspect was just unnecessary.

Pedro Alonso Lopez

13th June 2004, 23:47

Whats wrong with consensual violence between grown men? Your made up morals?

gawkygeek

14th June 2004, 01:28

the violence wasnt just about being violent, or rebelling, it was man returning to his former state, going back to where he came from in the begining and understanding that we really aren't much better than that. the men all turned to their primal instincts and they were all equal at that point, their jobs, their wealth, clothes none of that mattered it was just their primal instinct and will to succeed.

donnie darko was a great movie, it touched on so many areas and all of the subplots were there to show how everything could be effected by something so small, by one simple choice everything could be changed, its touching on the butterfly effect theory being that when a butterfly flaps its wings, a monsoon will rage across another area because of that simple motion. it was but that is only one of the many things that this amazing movie hit on

Saint-Just

14th June 2004, 13:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 11:47 PM
Whats wrong with consensual violence between grown men? Your made up morals?
I think your views are anti-human.

Morals may be made up, but so are societal relations, it does not necessarily mean that they are bad.

I haven't ever met anyone who wants to be so seriously injured that they are in serious pain for months in a hospital bed and come out of it disfigured for the rest of their lives.

praxis1966

14th June 2004, 15:25

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 3 2004, 02:02 PM
I think that Fight Club was a good film. However, the excessive and indiscriminate violence overshadowed that. They rebelled by sending each other to hospital in pointless brawls; I don't think people should be watching that.
Let me just say this. If you are against abortion, don't have one. If you are against smoking marijuana, then don't. If you are against prostitution, get your nookie for free. And if you have a problem with gratuitous violence in films, don't watch the ones which include it. That's why we have MPAA ratings.

refuse_resist

15th June 2004, 03:49

Fight Club was an awesome movie, even though I haven't seen it in ages. The soap, hehe.

As for Donnie Darko, I still haven't seen it.

Saint-Just

15th June 2004, 12:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 03:25 PM
Let me just say this. If you are against abortion, don't have one. If you are against smoking marijuana, then don't. If you are against prostitution, get your nookie for free. And if you have a problem with gratuitous violence in films, don't watch the ones which include it. That's why we have MPAA ratings.
The way in which one person behaves affects the whole of society. Also the way in which society views these things as a whole largely determines every individual's attitude towards them. For example, if there are more violent films then more people will accept them and watch them. And, consequently people value human rights less and are more likely to commit not only violence but other acts of abuse e.g. psychological abuse, abuse of trust and so on because people value human rights less.

Pedro Alonso Lopez

15th June 2004, 12:52

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 14 2004, 01:47 PM
I think your views are anti-human.

Morals may be made up, but so are societal relations, it does not necessarily mean that they are bad.

I haven't ever met anyone who wants to be so seriously injured that they are in serious pain for months in a hospital bed and come out of it disfigured for the rest of their lives.

First of all how would consensual violence be anti-human, that makes little since especially in relation to the rest of your post. If we make the morals and society does and we decide to have consensual violence then welcome to the new morality or the anti-morality, welcome to the key concept of the film, nihilism.

Morals are always errors.

Finally you obviously have never come across a sadist have you?

Pedro Alonso Lopez

15th June 2004, 12:52

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 15 2004, 12:40 PM
The way in which one person behaves affects the whole of society. Also the way in which society views these things as a whole largely determines every individual's attitude towards them. For example, if there are more violent films then more people will accept them and watch them. And, consequently people value human rights less and are more likely to commit not only violence but other acts of abuse e.g. psychological abuse, abuse of trust and so on because people value human rights less.

Prove it.

Yazman

16th June 2004, 04:51

Originally posted by percept¡[email protected] 4 2004, 02:58 AM
Fight Club is a deep ass film. You can watch it 100 times and learn something new every time.
Holy crap, I find the exact same thing. I have watched Fight Club so many times now, and I never get sick of watching it. Every single time I watch it, I learn something new.

Fight Club is a truly awesome film.

Donnie Darko is pretty good. Very, VERY weird, but it's still good.

Saint-Just

16th June 2004, 13:48

If we make the morals and society does and we decide to have consensual violence then welcome to the new morality or the anti-morality, welcome to the key concept of the film, nihilism.

Morals are always errors.

I think there was some grammatical error in your post as I cannot understand it. Specifically If we make the morals and society does

I think you meant doensn't. People have to concur as to what is moral, otherwise people will do whatever they want to each other. This leads on to your next point where you saw that something one or two people may do, does not necessarily affect others.

Prove it.

What I just said in the above post is affecting you, you are thinking about it and therefore I have affected your train of thought.

But, more specific to people seeing things on TV and in films: if on TV many people are seen to have their image improved if they own a certain product, they more people will buy their product; this has happened many times in the past.

People acquire morality and so forth from sources around them, we do not develop our own morality without seeing what others do. So, people simply aquire the morality others. What you call making your own morality is essentially ignoring morality completely. And, I was aware of the key concept of the film, in another thread I labelled you as a nihilist.

Pedro Alonso Lopez

16th June 2004, 14:43

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 16 2004, 01:48 PM

I think there was some grammatical error in your post as I cannot understand it. Specifically If we make the morals and society does

Not at all, you just can't comprehend it, don't blame grammar.

Essentially we make morals, as does society, the are the same, if we create the morals then to have consensual violence is the new morality if we so wish.

What I just said in the above post is affecting you, you are thinking about it and therefore I have affected your train of thought

So what, is this interaction 101? By your logic I would accept your morals surely, you are a source arent you?

But, more specific to people seeing things on TV and in films: if on TV many people are seen to have their image improved if they own a certain product, they more people will buy their product; this has happened many times in the past.

That is advertisin, not morality which is based on parental influence and instuition. In other words the power structures define morality.

People acquire morality and so forth from sources around them, we do not develop our own morality without seeing what others do. So, people simply aquire the morality others. What you call making your own morality is essentially ignoring morality completely. And, I was aware of the key concept of the film, in another thread I labelled you as a nihilist.

Thats where you are wrong, morality is dictated by whoever is in control of the power structures and what they need society to give them i.e. early capitalism baranded laziness as immoral as an excuse to force many insane people into labour to build economies.

And finally what is wrong with nihilism? What is wrong with being anti-moral? I still live in society and obey morals for one reason only, the power structures make me obey them or deprieve me of freedom.

In the film, the fighters take the power structures because they run everything in society, the menial jobs, same concept as communism and the proletariat and its power.

You just mediatate on bourgeoius morality and spew it back at me without a clue as to why you follow them beyond basic psychology of the common man.

DaCuBaN

16th June 2004, 14:55

Morals are subjective: They don't exist anywhere outside your head, this is something that Fight Club portrayed, deliberately or otherwise.

Fight Club basically explores post modern ideas about how modern man feels in a post capitalist society, essentially the descent into nihlism

Exactly!

One of the things noone seems to mention is that in the main character's insomnia, he 'creates' Tyler Durden.... to do something he himself was not capable of - wanton destruction of property resulting in the end of world debt.

Pretty deep movie... there really is something new every time you watch it.

ItalianFist

16th June 2004, 17:10

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 14 2004, 01:47 PM
I haven't ever met anyone who wants to be so seriously injured that they are in serious pain for months in a hospital bed and come out of it disfigured for the rest of their lives.
Its not that they wanted to be seriously injured, its that the conensual violence they were participating in was just something they were using as an escape from their cappie, consumer-driven lives. Getting injured didnt matter, nothing mattered, there was no real purpose other than the fact that thats what those guys needed to feel real.

The way in which one person behaves affects the whole of society. Also the way in which society views these things as a whole largely determines every individual's attitude towards them. For example, if there are more violent films then more people will accept them and watch them. And, consequently people value human rights less and are more likely to commit not only violence but other acts of abuse e.g. psychological abuse, abuse of trust and so on because people value human rights less.
Its not like Fightclub is a film advocating violence, its showing the story of how a group of men who look for some sort of way to feel like real human beings instead of dull drones with too much needless shit in their pathetic pointless lives. They find that sense of freedom in an underground fightclub. If some dumbass kid sees this movie and gets nothing more from it than, Oh man I wanna be like Brad Pitt and kick some ass, and goes out and starts kicking the shit out of his little next door nieghbor, thats his fault for not being able to comprehend the underlying message. But that is highly unlikely to happen anyways, no matter what the bullshitting media says, GTA Vice City and Arnold movies dont make people go out and do the real thing.

Saint-Just

17th June 2004, 10:08

If some dumbass kid sees this movie and gets nothing more from it than, Oh man I wanna be like Brad Pitt and kick some ass, and goes out and starts kicking the shit out of his little next door nieghbor, thats his fault for not being able to comprehend the underlying message.

Thats similar to Geists fascist ideology, that if people are stupid it is their own fault. I'll qualify why I think geist has a fascist ideology: fascism is political nihilism, it is against everything including morality.

Not at all, you just can't comprehend it, don't blame grammar.

Essentially we make morals, as does society, the are the same, if we create the morals then to have consensual violence is the new morality if we so wish.

I wouldn't make calling people stupid on message boards a habit. I am not stupid, or at least I am intelligent enough to comprehend what you are saying here.

What you are saying is that each individual should make their own morality rather than all individual's coming to an agreement over a single moral code.

So what, is this interaction 101? By your logic I would accept your morals surely, you are a source arent you?

You have not necessarily accepted my moral outlook as your own, but I may could have changed your analysis of morality and it is also a possibility that another individual may accept my moral view. Although it is not likely on the basis of one post on an internet forum, but if one was to watch a number films that exhibited my moral stance then it is quite likely.

Thats where you are wrong, morality is dictated by whoever is in control of the power structures and what they need society to give them

I agree, I say this everyday to people on message board who don't understand it. That ruling class ideology (and morality) pervades society, however people are still acquiring it from an external source.

What I just said above does not mean that nihilism is impossible since if society was nihilist everyone would adopt a nihilist viewpoint and thus develop their own view on morality. However, the problem with nihilism is it says there is no set morality, therefore many people would adopt a wrong morality.

You just mediatate on bourgeoius morality and spew it back at me without a clue as to why you follow them beyond basic psychology of the common man.

And what is wrong with psychology? Also, I use human biology, for example to have your head beat into the ground and your face broke is painful, therefore it is immoral to cause that to someone.

Incidently, after watching Fightclub my brother became very violent for a short time (he is 21). Also, people at my school set up their own 'Fightclub'.

DaCuBaN

17th June 2004, 10:12

Incidently, after watching Fightclub my brother became very violent for a short time (he is 21). Also, people at my school set up their own 'Fightclub'

I can see this happening.. after all, do the vast majority of members on this board not live in the 'consumer world' ?

How many of you out there are proud of the car you own, or your computer, or any other 'thing'. If you still are after watching this film, then you've missed the point in my opinion.

Still, if someone cannot see this, is it necessarily their fault? If not, then who is to blame? People must be accountable for their own actions.

Pedro Alonso Lopez

17th June 2004, 17:47

Mao most of your post is pointless, however I will pick you up on fascism as political nihilism, this I look forward to: explain.

ItalianFist

18th June 2004, 04:34

Fascism is in no way related to nihilism. Nihilism has no objective, no goals, when you accept nihilism your merely realising that you dont have to accept the society that man has built for himself. What you do from there is your own choice. Fascism is when a totalitarion ruler rises up and leads the people under him with a fucking iron fist. Fascists believe in organized structures and heirarchies and the like, nihilists reject that. I just dont see the connection.

Saint-Just

18th June 2004, 10:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 04:34 AM
Fascism is in no way related to nihilism. Nihilism has no objective, no goals, when you accept nihilism your merely realising that you dont have to accept the society that man has built for himself. What you do from there is your own choice. Fascism is when a totalitarion ruler rises up and leads the people under him with a fucking iron fist. Fascists believe in organized structures and heirarchies and the like, nihilists reject that. I just dont see the connection.
No, fascists are moral nihilists completely. It is often referred to as political nihilism because they stand against so man other political ideas, however that does not make it nihilism in the proper sense. But, fascism does have a true nihilist element in its rejection of societal imposed morality.

Mao most of your post is pointless

No it isn't. But, I am not concerned if you do not reply since I don't have to type.

Pedro Alonso Lopez

18th June 2004, 17:48

You do realize a. that nihilism is faith in nothing and that b. fascism is a totalitatian state with a set goal driving it aswell as some kind of teleological viewpoint in mind e.g. the master race. It also places a large emphasis on aesthetics.

How you equate them is beyond me, having faith in fascism automatically disqualifies it from nihilism by the very fact of being one.
Simple as.

Saint-Just

18th June 2004, 22:31

Fascism is nihilistic in the way it views morality: it has a faith in nothingness where morality is concerned.

In a political sense, no, it is not nihilism although it is often associated with nihilism: but it is only nihilistic in the way it views morality (Nazism that is, not necessarily all fascism).

Pedro Alonso Lopez

18th June 2004, 22:45

perceptÂ¡on

19th June 2004, 06:26

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 18 2004, 10:31 PM
Fascism is nihilistic in the way it views morality: it has a faith in nothingness where morality is concerned.

That's not true, it usually subverts morality ot the will of the state and is always accompanied by a moral element such as nationalism and self-sacrifice for the good of the state. Nihilism is not about rejecting morality and creating your own in its place, that's closer to existentialism. Nihilism is about rejecting morality, 'period'. Which is what Fight Club was about, rejection, negation, and destruction. They didn't create anything; in fact they just progressed to higher levels of destruction.

"Self improvement is masturbation. Now self-destruction..." - Tyler Durdin

Saint-Just

19th June 2004, 22:11

Ok so already you have conceded that my being a nihilist means I cannot be a fascist.

Secondly you have altered your argument considerably to suit the loss of this aspect of the argument. Now we find that a subset of the ideology can be described as politically nihilistic.

I was making a reference to a common label put on fascism, it is not my opinion but that of others. You have proved that I was wrong to subscribe to the opinion. I have not altered my argument to suit any loss, I was wrong on one point but still believe I am correct on another point.

Can you give me one example of where fascism is associated with nihilism, the morality of fascist countries tend to be quite rigid, usually from just extreme puritianism like you would hope for I am sure.

No, I would not hope for a society with Nazi morality.

Himmler (condemned): 'marriage laws as in themselves immoral'.

One of the authorative book on the Third Reich is a comtemporary work called The Third Reich A New History by Michael Burleigh.

In the book, Burleigh paints a picture people who rejected morality outright, a master race that could do what it wants where morality is concerned. He spends very little time on the subject, about a page and a half.

These are some quotes from the book:

(The Nazis made)'A concerted effort to destigmatise illegitimacy' (referring to illegitimate children)

Nazi leadership 'scorned the old ways that used shame to restrain sexual morality'

'Well of Life' homes were established where unmarried pregnant girls could have their babies away from 'the moralising attention of families'

Pedro Alonso Lopez

20th June 2004, 15:56

Thats not nihilism. It's lax morality, nihilism is faith in nothing, what you have there is discource, power, sexuality all tied into morality and a weakening of a morality created by the upper classes being re-arranged to suit the new classes.

You have to remember Nazi Germany sought to re-produce as many Aryans as possible. For example after the war if successful most officers would have been allowed to commit bigomy, Himmler had it all worked out and of course it didnt occur.

Nothing to do with nihilism at all however.

Saint-Just

20th June 2004, 17:10

They did not believe in morality, they thought it was a restriction on people's life. They pursued a society where morality was absent. They may not have necessarily proclaimed to be unfluenced by the philosophy of Nietzsche where morality is concerned but they exhibited the outlook on morality.

Pedro Alonso Lopez

20th June 2004, 17:17

No they woulkd simply have replaced Victorian morality which Nietzsche was reacting against with a new one.

Morality will always be quite simply whatever suits the elites, it why I think you are naive, you are a communist who holds up bourgeoius values.

Nazi Germany morality served the purposes of power for the time - procreation.

Work for example is associated in capitalist countries with being the opposite of lazy, Laziness since the inception of capitalism has been associated with madness in order to put men and women in homes and get some free labour etc.

Saint-Just

21st June 2004, 10:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 05:17 PM
No they woulkd simply have replaced Victorian morality which Nietzsche was reacting against with a new one.

Morality will always be quite simply whatever suits the elites, it why I think you are naive, you are a communist who holds up bourgeoius values.

Nazi Germany morality served the purposes of power for the time - procreation.

Work for example is associated in capitalist countries with being the opposite of lazy, Laziness since the inception of capitalism has been associated with madness in order to put men and women in homes and get some free labour etc.
You say I hold bourgeois values, but my values are not characterised by bourgeois ideology. Bourgeois ideology is about a corrupt view of human nature etc. My view of morality is socialist because I see sexual morality as compassionate behaviour between humans and so on. I think you are a socialist with right-wing values because you think that individual rights benefit the collective, which is part of right-wing ideology. Where as, on the left we say that collectivist behaviour benefits the individual.

Pedro Alonso Lopez

21st June 2004, 15:50

Where have I mentioned anything to do with individual rights? You can't assign anything you want to me because it seems that way.

First of all I believe first and foremost in the neccessity of a collective society as the basis for equality. I am a socialist perhaps but not an orthodox one thats for sure.

I fail to see and have never come across a good argument as to why individuality needs to be surpressed in a socialist society? In fact I believe a socialist society will allow people to be more individual with the more freedom they have, a setting free from alienation and the burden of making money etc. I base this on the fact that I view culture to be the highest form of human achievement, I believe a socialit society will free man from labour and give more time to culture.

The logical conclusion I conclude from this is that a collective society with more time devoted to culture will collectively achieve a lot. Its an argument I use agiainst fascist for Christs sake.

You see I believe your values are bourgeoius because you simply replace one economic system with the other without thinking about the general aims of man, his own individual freedom, not to own property which is what you are aiming to get me on but in relation to enjoying life. This is where your values become burdensome and the only thing he gains is equality but need i say it, you cannot have equality without freedom.

Saint-Just

22nd June 2004, 11:12

Where have I mentioned anything to do with individual rights? You can't assign anything you want to me because it seems that way.

I presumed that nihilism allowed individuals to do what they want as long as other individuals consent. That would appear to provide individuals the right to do anything they want and where other individuals are affected assuming they consent.

I fail to see and have never come across a good argument as to why individuality needs to be surpressed in a socialist society? In fact I believe a socialist society will allow people to be more individual with the more freedom they have, a setting free from alienation and the burden of making money etc. I base this on the fact that I view culture to be the highest form of human achievement, I believe a socialit society will free man from labour and give more time to culture.

I agree entirely.

You see I believe your values are bourgeoius because you simply replace one economic system with the other without thinking about the general aims of man, his own individual freedom, not to own property which is what you are aiming to get me on but in relation to enjoying life. This is where your values become burdensome and the only thing he gains is equality but need i say it, you cannot have equality without freedom.

To create freedom humans must be provided with certain things e.g. education, shelter etc. and there must also be restrictions to prevent humans from diminishing the freedom of others. I think there are examples where bourgeois society has taken away individual rights to far too greater an extent, for example by banning smoking in public. For example, too human beings doing excessive physical damage to each other is wrong, but smoking is not because assuming the individual takes the right precautions (e.g. not smoking 2 packs a day) they can anjoy themselves and remain unharmed. Similarly, boxing as a sport is acceptable because precautions are taken. But, if one sees boxing on TV and decide to do it without any of the precautions they need to be stopped.

I think the warnings on packets of cigarettes we have now are unacceptable because they do prevent people from enjoying themselves, it says smoking causes death etc. which is true but in moderation smoking is not harmful and so they are restricting our freedom by telling us not to smoke at all.

This is my interpretation of what is permissible and what is not.

perceptÂ¡on

22nd June 2004, 13:34

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 22 2004, 11:12 AM

I presumed that nihilism allowed individuals to do what they want as long as other individuals consent. That would appear to provide individuals the right to do anything they want and where other individuals are affected assuming they consent.

No. Nihilism allows individuals to do anything, period, including murder.

"Nothing is true, therefore everything is permitted." - Dostoveisky

Pedro Alonso Lopez

22nd June 2004, 18:31

On the first quote nihilism has nothin at all to so with doing anything, it is faith in nothing. You are talking about the consequences of being a pratical nihilist in life which is an impposibility since laws force us to consent etc.

By the way Dostoevsky also wrote 'If God is dead, all is permitted' which dosent mean all atheits go out and murder which is logically what you have applied to nihilism perception.

Chairman Mao I think at this stage we have both exaplined our views and I cant think of going any further without repeating arguments.