Nihilist Quote

[The Feral Underclass]

An interesting quote and an insight into my feelings towards morality that I thought other people may have.


"I will be immoral, and why should I not? Because the
Bible wills it? But the Bible is only a collection of
Babylonian and Hebrew traditions, traditions collected
and put together like the Homeric poems, or as is being
done still with Basque poems and Mongolian legends.
Must I then go back to the state of mind of the half-
civilized peoples of the East?

"Must I be moral because Kant tells me of a
categoric imperative, of a mysterious command which
comes to me from the depths of my own being and bids
me be moral? But why should this 'categoric imperative'
exercise a greater authority over my actions than that
other imperative, which at times may command me to get
drunk. A word, nothing but a word, like the words
'Providence,' or 'Destiny,' invented to conceal our
ignorance.

"Or perhaps I am to be moral to oblige Bentham,
who wants me to believe that I shall be happier if I drown
to save a passerby who has fallen into the river than if I
watched him drown?

"Or perhaps because such has been my education?
Because my mother taught me morality? Shall I then go
and kneel down in a church, honor the Queen, bow before
the judge I know for a scoundrel, simply because our
mothers, our good ignorant mothers, have taught us such
a pack of nonsense ?

"I am prejudiced, --like everyone else. I will try to rid
myself of prejudice! Even though immorality be distaste-
ful, I will yet force myself to be immoral, as when I was a
boy I forced myself to give up fearing the dark, the church-
yard, ghosts and dead people --all of which I had been
taught to fear.

"It will be immoral to snap a weapon abused by
religion; I will do it, were it only to protect against the
hypocrisy imposed on us in the name of a word to which
the name morality has been given!"


http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/kropotki/sp000066.txt

[Hit The North]

Yes, everyone should act like an immoral asshole. The world would be a much better place.

Or am I missing something?

And this:


Must I then go back to the state of mind of the half-
civilized peoples of the East?

sounds vaguely racist to me. "Half civilised" compared to who?

[bretty]

More like lucid racism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 10 2006, 05:15 PM
Yes, everyone should act like an immoral asshole. The world would be a much better place.
What does it mean to be immoral? What do you think would happen to the world if people rejected moralism?


Or am I missing something?

Well yes, but that's not necessarily your fault.

What is a moral? It's a predetermined standard to human behaviour usually dictated to by a group of individuals with a specific agenda that is enforced by fear.

Religious moralism is an obvious example of such predetermined standards dictated to by an institution who wish everyone to obey the Church and bible on fear of going to hell: That's clearly unjusified.

Other, less obvious morals, that we all take as self-evident are more difficult to refute (that's the enlightenment for you). Morals such as killing someone for example. Society views killing others as immoral.

Again, this is a predetermined standard to human behaviour dictated to us by those who control our society. Everyone accepts it as self-evident. To kill someone is immoral and should therefore not be done.

Unfortunately, this standard that has been predetermined is irrational. what happens when I need to kill someone? If someone put a gun to your head and told you that you had to kill the person in front of you or be killed what would be your response?

What humans do not accept is their own unfathamoble position in life. We judge ourselves and society based on predetermined standards, rather than judging the world for ourselves and forming opinions on what is necessary.

Every human being has the will and the ability to pursue their own agenda. Sometimes those individuals form into larger groups, other times they don't, but regardless of that everyone has something they wish to achieve.

The question is, whether or not those groups succeed in achieving what they desire. I'm an anarchist - I want to create anarchism. If I were to be tied down by the concept of morality, then I may never achieve this.

In that context, why should I accept those morals, if they hinder my ability to achieve anarchism. It is necessary for me to reject morality, not simply on the basis that they aren't truths (which they aren't) but because morality stops me from achieving what I my opinion says is necessary.

If I need to kill someone to achieve an anarchist society, then that is what is necessary.



Must I then go back to the state of mind of the half-
civilized peoples of the East?

sounds vaguely racist to me. "Half civilised" compared to who?

What I have quoted was written in the 19th Century.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 10 2006, 04:15 PM


sounds vaguely racist to me. "Half civilised" compared to who?
No.

"civilization" is a very specific term for a society that has certain characteristics.

There has been very advanced eastern and western civilization.

What is the matter anyway? European west is much more progressive than lets say, uganda. There is nothing racist about that.

[Enragé]

having morals is simply having a concept of right and wrong

i see nothing wrong with that.

the point is that we should not base our morals on baseless crap like the bible.

[apathy maybe]

I agree that we definitely need to get rid of all the 'pre-digested' morals that are feed to us by society and by "our good ignorant mothers". However, I do not reject ethics as such, and I do not think that as anarchists we should.

On the difference between morality and ethics: I see morals as an irrational sometimes religious ethics. Often prejudiced. If you are immoral, you are "sinful". Being queer is "immoral" and "sinful" according to many religions.

Ethics, however, is more based on a rationalistic materialistic conception of the world; "does this hurt other people?" sort of thing.

See also the thread on ethics started less then two hours before this one http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57252



Originally posted by Citizen Zero
Yes, everyone should act like an immoral asshole. The world would be a much better place.

Or am I missing something?Yes I do think you are missing something. Two things in fact. The first is that rejecting morals and rejecting societies ethics does not mean that you go around killing others, or being egotistical.

The second is, even if every body rejected all ethics and morality, humans (and other animals) tend to similar behaviours. Next time you are first into a lift, stand facing the back (try and have a friend with you do the same thing). Notice how people copy you? No ethics involved.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 01:28 AM
having morals is simply having a concept of right and wrong


The point is, there is no "right" or "wrong". Morals are not a constant and you cannot standardise human behaviour in absolutes.

You might think killing a person is wrong, but it what if it's necessary? If you agree but still maintain that it is wrong, then what purpose does this moral actually serve? It seems irrelevant.


i see nothing wrong with that.

It's not necessarily wrong, it's just not a truth. What I mean is, it's not an objective way of looking at human interaction or behaviour nor is it realistic to assume that morals can be absolutes.

Pacifists believe it is immoral to use violence and uphold their moralism in every situation. That's not noble, it's absurd. Violence is necessary and in that case it should be used.

Morals serve no purpose in the context of reality other than to create false standards in which humans pretend to maintain.


the point is that we should not base our morals on baseless crap like the bible.

What should be base them on then?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAT, presumably your argument is that is wrong to assert that there is a right or a wrong.

I trust you see the absurdity in that?

[Demogorgon]

I get the funny feeling that people do not know what morality is. It is the study of right and wrong and it is the study of how people should behave in relation to other people.

To say we should have no morality at all is to say it is fine to do anything we please, whether that be murder, rape, torture etc.

Also on a level very specific to this site, how can we say exploiting the proletariat is wrong when we have already said there is no such thing as right and wrong?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Demogorgon, I think you are wrong; only psychopaths do not know the differences you speak of.

Sure, when it does not really matter, people can pretend to question certain moral concepts on discussion boards like this, or in academic books and articles, but faced with real choices they cannot fail to make moral decisions.

The latter might be subject to query, but not by those who claim that moral notions are empty terms.

This is for the simple reason that they would have to understand those terms to criticise them, whcih they could not do if they were indeed empty notions.

This is not to accept conventional ideas of morality, or anyhting of the sort; just to make an observation about what it is logically possible to do with the language of ethics.

Nihilism of any sort is a parasitic endeavour; it lives off live meanings only to try to kill them.

In doing so, it kills itself.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 11 2006, 02:10 PM
Demogorgon, I think you are wrong; only psychopaths do not know the differences you speak of.

Sure, when it does not really matter, people can pretend to question certain moral concepts on discussion boards like this, or in academic books and articles, but faced with real choices they cannot fail to make moral decisions.

The latter might be subject to query, but not by those who claim that moral notions are empty terms.

This is for the simple reason that they would have to understand those terms to criticise them, whcih they could not do if they were indeed empty notions.

This is not to accept conventional ideas of morality, or anyhting of the sort; just to make an observation about what it is logically possible to do with the language of ethics.

Nihilism of any sort is a parasitic endeavour; it lives off live meanings only to try to kill them.

In doing so, it kills itself.
Certainly I would agree that anyone with an ounce of sanity in them instinctively knows it is wrong to cmmit murder or rape and I am very much including the people here that calim to reject morality. Probably the core reason they are wrong is simply because for all their claims not to care about morality they will still instinctively feel compelled to do what is right.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Demogoron, fair enough, but even those who say they reject certain sorts of morality put their own in its place; for example it is right to kill one's enemies in a revolution. Or, it is right to oppose absolutist ethics, or anti-abortionists, or homophobes....

The problem with nihilism is not so much its being a reflection of psychological damage, but it is logically impossible to pull off, as my conundrums sought to expose.

[Quite often, though, among the young, it is just a pose.... ;) ]

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 11 2006, 02:33 PM
Demogoron, fair enough, but even those who say they reject certain sorts of morality put their own in its place; for example it is right to kill one's enemies in a revolution. Or, it is right to oppose absolutist ethics, or anti-abortionists, or homophobes....

The problem with nihilism is not so much its being a reflection of psychological damage, but it is logically impossible to pull off, as my conundrums sought to expose.

[Quite often, though, among the young, it is just a pose.... ;) ]
Well yes I agree with you there, I think what a lot of people do is hear talk of "morality" from the religious right, and instead of responding to it by realising what they are saying is immorality hypocritically dressed up as morality, react to it by saying they reject morality out and out.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 11 2006, 12:59 PM
TAT, presumably your argument is that is wrong to assert that there is a right or a wrong.

I trust you see the absurdity in that?
I don't think it's wrong nor am I saying that. Right or wrong don't exist.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 02:50 PM
I get the funny feeling that people do not know what morality is. It is the study of right and wrong and it is the study of how people should behave in relation to other people.
That is, more or less, precisely the defintion I gave.


To say we should have no morality at all is to say it is fine to do anything we please, whether that be murder, rape, torture etc.

How does this morality manifest itself? How does this morality stop people from doing these things in the first place?

Essentially, in the reality of our basic human existance, it is fine to do what we do. Regardless of that, why do you think that people would go around murdering, raping and torturing people if there was no specific concept of morals or the enforcment of them?

What would happen if someone put a gun to your head and told you that you were going to be shot if you did not rape someone? What happens if you needed to get a piece of information from someone that would save the lives of your family? Would you not resort to torture? Again, what if it is necessary to murder someone to achieve something massively important to you?


Also on a level very specific to this site, how can we say exploiting the proletariat is wrong when we have already said there is no such thing as right and wrong?

Exploitation is economically illogical and hinders human progress. Communism on the other hand doesn't and in order to achieve communism it is necessary to destroy capitaliams...

[RevolverNo9]

I'm an anarchist - I want to create anarchism. If I were to be tied down by the concept of morality, then I may never achieve this.

So instead, you create an entirely new arbitrary code of practice.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 11:27 PM

I'm an anarchist - I want to create anarchism. If I were to be tied down by the concept of morality, then I may never achieve this.

So instead, you create an entirely new arbitrary code of practice.
No, I simply do what ever is necessary to achieve my goal. It seems perfectly rational to me...

[RevolverNo9]

Not much of a nihilist then, are you (nor does what you say contradict my claim).

Why is your goal any superior to that sought by the enforcement of social morality?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAT:


Right or wrong don't exist.

So, you are saying that I was wrong to say they do?

Otherwise, why point this out?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 11 2006, 10:15 PM

Exploitation is economically illogical and hinders human progress. Communism on the other hand doesn't and in order to achieve communism it is necessary to destroy capitaliams...
The only nihilist answer to that is "so what?"

If there is no right and wrong, how could hindering human progress be any worse than spurring it on?

I guess the basis of what I am saying is when you say that it is economically illogical, you have the hidden premise that hindering human progress is wrong. Yet you don't believe in right and wrong, do you?

Not to mention how can it be economically illogical when nihilism effectively casts such things aside?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+Oct 12 2006, 05:15 AM--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ Oct 12 2006, 05:15 AM)
TAT
Right or wrong don't exist.

So, you are saying that I was wrong to say they do? [/b]
No, you weren't wrong to say it.


Otherwise, why point this out?

Because it's true. You might say that I am saying that you are wrong for saying what you said, but that would be my subjective opinion, not a truth.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+Oct 12 2006, 08:28 AM--> (Demogorgon @ Oct 12 2006, 08:28 AM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 11 2006, 10:15 PM

Exploitation is economically illogical and hinders human progress. Communism on the other hand doesn't and in order to achieve communism it is necessary to destroy capitaliams...
The only nihilist answer to that is "so what?"

If there is no right and wrong, how could hindering human progress be any worse than spurring it on? [/b]
It's not the only answer. Nihilsim doesn't necessarily negate the possibility of wanting human progress, it simply proposes that neither one opinion is of any greater value than the other.


If there is no right and wrong, how could hindering human progress be any worse than spurring it on?

In reality it isn't.


I guess the basis of what I am saying is when you say that it is economically illogical, you have the hidden premise that hindering human progress is wrong. Yet you don't believe in right and wrong, do you?

Subjectively perhaps, but let's try and be a little bit more savvy about it and move beyond our own misgivings as human beings :P

Watching someone die of hunger is not a nice thing to witness, especially when there is an abundance of food. There is no logic to that and makes the world I have to live in unpleasent.

As a Nihilist, I could say, I don't give a shit about that starving person because I have no responsbility to do so. That is perfectly jusitified. I on the other hand don't particularly like watching someone starve to death and I don't mind being responsbile for stopping them from dying. I would say that being alive, insofar as I know, is better than not being alive. I assume most people feel the same...?

It's fundamentally a [selfish] choice. I choose to be pleasent, because it is better for me and for the people I love. What do you choose?


Not to mention how can it be economically illogical when nihilism effectively casts such things aside?

I don't understand what you mean?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAT:


You might say that I am saying that you are wrong for saying what you said, but that would be my subjective opinion, not a truth.

So, this is your true opinion that your opinion is not true?


No, you weren't wrong to say it.

So I was right to say it?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 12 2006, 10:52 AM
TAT:


You might say that I am saying that you are wrong for saying what you said, but that would be my subjective opinion, not a truth.

So, this is your true opinion that your opinion is not true?
It is an opinion which is true; that this other opinion is not true.



No, you weren't wrong to say it.

So I was right to say it?

No, you are neither right nor wrong in saying what you said. You simpy said it. What subjective attachments you add or anyone else adds is entirely your choice.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Some people here seem to be confusing morality with justice.

By the way, I fully agree with TAT.
Nice thread.

and "right" is a word with many definitions, two of which are indistinctvely being used in this discussion.
(1) What is good and morally sound
(2) What is correct

TAT's opinion is the second "right"
Whether or not you were right or wrong to say something can be either the first or second definition... distinguish which, please. Othewrise this argument is going nowhere.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAT:


It is an opinion which is true; that this other opinion is not true.


You might say that I am saying that you are wrong for saying what you said, but that would be my subjective opinion, not a truth.

Both of which are interesting in view of your earlier:


Right or wrong don't exist.

And these do not seem to mesh too well either:


No, you are neither right nor wrong in saying what you said.


You might say that I am saying that [b]you are wrong for saying what you said,

Your opinion seems to change rather haphazardly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dr R, I agree that the words TAT is using have many meanings (more than you list in fact), but my claim is that TAT has to use them, then vacate them of meaning, thus vacating all he says about anything.

That is why I have got him on this hook, and am slowly reeling him in.

As I said earlier:


Nihilism of any sort is a parasitic endeavour; it lives off live meanings only to try to kill them.

In doing so, it kills itself.

[The Feral Underclass]

Rosa, I'm quite confident that I am explaining myself perfectly well. If you are having trouble understanding then I apologise but I don't see how simpler I can explain this to you.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2006, 09:44 AM
it simply proposes that neither one opinion is of any greater value than the other.


Comments like this leave me unconvinced that you actually know what nihilism is. What you are describing is moral relativisim which is an entirely different thing entirely.

Moral reletavism holds that there are different moral systems and no particular one is correct, nonetheless people will follow a particular system and there is genuine right and wrong within this.

Nihilism on the other hand says there is no right and wrong, not even subjective right and wrong, it says no action is good and no action is evil and any opinion to the contrary is wrong.

See the difference?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 12 2006, 12:00 PM
my claim is that TAT has to use them, then vacate them of meaning, thus vacating all he says about anything.
As far as I'm aware, it was you who started asking me whether or not what I was saying was right or wrong. In fact, I had made only one statement. That was, right and wrong don't exist.

You then attempt to show the illogicality in that statement. You say, that I am saying, that what you are saying is wrong, thus disproving my assertion that right or wrong don't exist.

My response to you was they are neither right nor wrong in what you say or if you please, both right and both wrong in what you say. Each occasion proving that right and wrong don't exist.

Now, is the opinion that "right and wrong" don't exist right. Again, no it isn't right, it's a truth, but it isn't right, simply on the basis that subjective opinion will always make it wrong. Again proving that nothing is right and nothing is wrong.

There is simply truth or the lack there of.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+Oct 12 2006, 12:00 PM--> (Demogorgon @ Oct 12 2006, 12:00 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2006, 09:44 AM
it simply proposes that neither one opinion is of any greater value than the other.

Nihilism on the other hand says there is no right and wrong, not even subjective right and wrong, it says no action is good and no action is evil and any opinion to the contrary is wrong. [/b]
That is essentially the same thing, although you have just fallen into the illogical canundrum I have just attempted to refute.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAT:


Rosa, I'm quite confident that I am explaining myself perfectly well. If you are having trouble understanding then I apologise but I don't see how simpler I can explain this to you.

Well, I claim otherwise, and my exposure of your inconsistencies, if you will forgive me putting it so bluntly, was aimed just there.

As with all nihilists (I take it you are one?), I assert this:


Nihilism of any sort is a parasitic endeavour; it lives off live meanings only to try to kill them.

In doing so, it kills itself

So, I do understand your words, but I rather think that that understanding shows you (singular) are using them in a way that undermines them and thus all you say.

I think you (plural -- i.e, you nihilists) help yourself to words that have certain meanings, but use them to undermine these, as I tried to show.

In the end, I claim you (plural, not just you (singular!)) end up saying nothing, or not anything that even you (plural or singular) understand.

The fact that your words are rapidly becoming terminally inconsistent confirms this -- and it will only get worse the more you say.

[The Feral Underclass]

If I have been inconsistent, you have failed to show me what they are.

Also, I think these attitudes are very relevant in terms of people understanding their own existance and their relationship to the world around them.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I used to be a nihilist, but I overcame it. I am tired of people who just randomly spout nonsense about how everything is opinion and nothing is really right or wrong. There is no reason to believe that, and it would be beneficial to deny such a thing if it were true.

Russell, Nietzsche, and others all have better grasps on reality than such nihilists.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2006, 11:07 AM
That is essentially the same thing.
No it isn't, it is completely different. Moral subjectivism holds there is right and wrong whereas nihilism holds that there isn't. That is a very important.

Nihilism holds for example that if you see a beggar on the street torturing him to death is every bit as acceptable as giving him money nd any opinion to the coontrary is absolutely wrong.

A moral subjectivist on the other hand would say that of course giving money is better than torturing somebody to death given that coimmon sense morality tells us that (something a nihilist denies the existence of), they would of course recognise that potentially other systems of morality could exist that say otherwise but they would view them as being incorrect.

I hate to do the dredential blowing thing here, but I am a student of moral philosophy. If nothing else I know my definitions ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Exhibit A for the prosecution:


My response to you was they are neither right nor wrong in what you say or if you please, both right and both wrong in what you say. Each occasion proving that right and wrong don't exist.

So, let me get this straight, even though you can say things are neither right nor wrong, nor both, or even both, then the thing you have just been speaking about does not exist.

So what have you been talking about?

You talk as if these are objects of some sort, a bit like, say, Big Foot and/or the Yetti.

In that case, my earlier claim that you did not know what these words meant was correct -- so I was right -- er, so it does 'exist'. :)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+Oct 12 2006, 12:14 PM--> (Demogorgon @ Oct 12 2006, 12:14 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2006, 11:07 AM
That is essentially the same thing.
No it isn't, it is completely different. Moral subjectivism holds there is right and wrong whereas nihilism holds that there isn't. That is a very important. [/b]
Which is what I said.


Nihilism holds for example that if you see a beggar on the street torturing him to death is every bit as acceptable as giving him money nd any opinion to the coontrary is absolutely wrong.

Again, that's what I said.


A moral subjectivist on the other hand would say that of course giving money is better than torturing somebody to death given that coimmon sense morality tells us that (something a nihilist denies the existence of)

This is where the confusion is. I don't not torture someone to death because I'm a coward and I find the idea really distasteful. Not because I have a moral opinion about it.

In a revolution, it maybe neccessary to torture someone, I just don't think I could do it. It would freak me out.

[Demogorgon]

Let me put it another way then, was what Ted Bundy did perfectly acceptable?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 12 2006, 12:15 PM
Exhibit A for the prosecution:


My response to you was they are neither right nor wrong in what you say or if you please, both right and both wrong in what you say. Each occasion proving that right and wrong don't exist.

So, let me get this straight, even though you can say things are neither right nor wrong, nor both, or even both, then the thing you have just been speaking about does not exist.
That's precisely what you can do, and is what most people do every day.


So what have you been talking about?

A continous stream of subjective opinion which is worthless.


You talk as if these are objects of some sort, a bit like, say, Big Foot and/or the Yetti.

Well, in a sense they are. These opinions manifest themselves in our objective world and have very real consequences on our human behaviour.


In that case, my earlier claim that you did not know what these words meant was correct -- so I was right -- er, so it does 'exist'. :)

Unless I think you're wrong of course ;)

The world exists in your mind because you are introverted in your understanding of the world around you, but to quote Bernard Black: "There will be a Friday next week, the week after and the week after that, and even when your dead the whole rotten thing will go on and on"

The point being, the world exists outside your head and at its very core of reality has no rules to it, only those we strange, unfathomable, egotistical little creatures create for ourselves.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 12:31 PM
Let me put it another way then, was what Ted Bundy did perfectly acceptable?
Yes. But it was, in the context of my tastes, highgly unusual and not particularly nice.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2006, 11:37 AM
Yes. But it was, in the context of my tastes, highgly unusual and not particularly nice.
Umm okay, we are approaching the flaw here.

Next to take it to extreme, was the Holocaust fine and dandy?
What about Apartheid?
The Armenian Genocide?
The occupation of the West Bank?

Are all these things entirely acceptable and without any moral flaw?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+Oct 12 2006, 12:39 PM--> (Demogorgon @ Oct 12 2006, 12:39 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2006, 11:37 AM
Yes. But it was, in the context of my tastes, highgly unusual and not particularly nice.
Umm okay, we are approaching the flaw here.

Next to take it to extreme, was the Holocaust fine and dandy?
What about Apartheid?
The Armenian Genocide?
The occupation of the West Bank?

Are all these things entirely acceptable and without any moral flaw? [/b]
Yes.

But I don't agree with them, politically or socially or conceptually and this is perhaps where my nihilism and where my anarchism leave paths.

These things are without moral flaw, because there's no such thing as morality, but they are abhorrent to my senses and to my desire to create an anarchist society.

Would I accept them if they happened again? Absolutely, unequvically not.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2006, 11:42 AM

Yes.

But I don't agree with them, politically or socially or conceptually and this is perhaps where my nihilism and where my anarchism leave paths.

These things are without moral flaw, because there's no such thing as morality, but they are abhorrent to my senses and to my desire to create an anarchist society.

Would I accept them if they happened again? Absolutely, unequvically not.
Aye, I think we have hit upon the flaw here. It was obviou we would come to this since the first post in this thread.

You see your belief in anarchism is based upon a series of values you hold. That is true for anybody who hods any values really.

You hold these views in part, because of your consciounce, and that comes from morality.

Concepts of good and evil and our need for morality are not ordained upon us from some higher being, they come from ourselves, there is something in the human spirit, in our nature that tels us certain actions are abhorent. It takes a personality disorder such as sociopathy to fail to be able to see these truths.

That is why, sociopaths not withstanding, when we look at pictures of holocaust victims we can feel nothing but disgust for those responsible and nothing but empathy for those who suffered these things. Our basic humanity lets us do nothing else. And there again is the route of morality.

For nihilism to be correct this basic human empathy and understanding that certain things are awful must be wrong, and if it is it follows that all the values we draw from it are also false. In short if nihilism is true your belief in anarchism must be wrong. Nihilism alows only one social system and that is what we might call the popular pinion of anarchy. By that I mean what those who do not understand anarchism think it is, people running around doing as they please with no regard for others. Ayn Rand on crack if you like.

And all of this before I even start on the meta-physics on nihilism...

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 01:00 PM
You see your belief in anarchism is based upon a series of values you hold. That is true for anybody who hods any values really.
What are these values?

I have clearly described why I am an anarchist in this thread.


You hold these views in part, because of your consciounce, and that comes from morality.

I totally reject that.


Concepts of good and evil and our need for morality are not ordained upon us from some higher being, they come from ourselves, there is something in the human spirit, in our nature that tels us certain actions are abhorent.

How else did this "human spirit and nature" mysteriously get inside our innate character if not ordained from above? There is, of course, no other way to explain what it is, essentially, some mysterious power.


It takes a personality disorder such as sociopathy to fail to be able to see these truths.

Sorry, I reject that also. Very normal people, with "normal" lives, who love, who have sympathy and empathy, people who have compassion and loyalty, honour and courage do some of the most vile things none to this world.

Morality isn't a truth. Concepts of good and evil aren't "truths" and they apply almost arbitrarily through out the world within different humans. They are subjective and thus worthless.


That is why, sociopaths not withstanding, when we look at pictures of holocaust victims we can feel nothing but disgust for those responsible and nothing but empathy for those who suffered these things.

Well, a very large section of society, sure, but in fact there are many rational people, who again love etc etc who look at those pictures and think: "This was necessary".


Our basic humanity lets us do nothing else. And there again is the route of morality.

The "route of morality" is subjugation.


For nihilism to be correct this basic human empathy and understanding that certain things are awful must be wrong, and if it is it follows that all the values we draw from it are also false.

But right and wrong don't exist. You mean false, rather than wrong...?


In short if nihilism is true your belief in anarchism must be wrong.

What you mean is; if nihilism is true, anarchism is false. Well, in the context of nihilism negating morality (right and wrong) and anarchism being a false set of values (in terms of the fact there are no correct values) this is true.

Regardless, I enjoy being pleasant and polite to people. I enjoy the atmosphere that creates, the interaction with others in generates. I enjoy being compassionate because it makes me feel good about myself. I believe that anarchist communism is possible and desirable to humanity because it destroys capitalism and I want to destroy capitalism because I want my own freedom and in turn freedom for my friends and family.


Nihilism alows only one social system and that is what we might call the popular pinion of anarchy. By that I mean what those who do not understand anarchism think it is, people running around doing as they please with no regard for others. Ayn Rand on crack if you like.

That's one view of Nihilism, but as the Russian political nihilist, Dimitri Pisarev said:

"Here is the ultimatum of our camp. What can be smashed must be smashed; whatever will stand the blow is sound, what flies into smithereens is rubbish; at any rate, hit out right and left, no harm will or can come of it."

I think that's rather an optimistic view on the future.

[Demogorgon]

I think you are begging the question here. In order to prove there is no right and wrong, one of your premises appears to be that there is no right and wrong...

Incidentally you say I am referring to mysterious forces when I refer to morality, I am not. I m currently doing research )as I say I am a student of moral philosophy) indicating that the basis of morality is in the human survival instinct. When I have the work in a more complete form I may share it with the board.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2006, 01:38 PM

"Here is the ultimatum of our camp. What can be smashed must be smashed; whatever will stand the blow is sound, what flies into smithereens is rubbish; at any rate, hit out right and left, no harm will or can come of it."

I think that's rather an optimistic view on the future.
I must take parrticular issue with this statement. In order to test whether my computer is good or not, I don't hit it with a sledge hammer

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAT's objective opinion about everyone else's subjectivism:


That's precisely what you can do, and is what most people do every day. A continous stream of subjective opinion which is worthless.

We need lessons from you on how to be objective. ;)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+Oct 12 2006, 02:50 PM--> (Demogorgon @ Oct 12 2006, 02:50 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2006, 01:38 PM

"Here is the ultimatum of our camp. What can be smashed must be smashed; whatever will stand the blow is sound, what flies into smithereens is rubbish; at any rate, hit out right and left, no harm will or can come of it."

I think that's rather an optimistic view on the future.
I must take parrticular issue with this statement. In order to test whether my computer is good or not, I don't hit it with a sledge hammer [/b]
I apologise for not being clear.

The context of that quote is the creation of a future society. It has nothing to do with your computer :)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 02:49 PM
In order to prove there is no right and wrong, one of your premises appears to be that there is no right and wrong...
Yes...


. I m currently doing research )as I say I am a student of moral philosophy) indicating that the basis of morality is in the human survival instinct.

Morality is a human construct. If your research proves that there is an inherent biological mechnism that forces us to act with compassion, then this is an objective fact and negates any ideas of morality.


When I have the work in a more complete form I may share it with the board.

I look forward to it.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by TAT
Yes...

You can't have your conclusion as one of your premises, that's a circular argument :P


Oh and interesting debate people, am enjoying reading it :)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Oct 12 2006, 03:08 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Oct 12 2006, 03:08 PM)
TAT
Yes...

You can't have your conclusion as one of your premises, that's a circular argument :P [/b]
I didn't realise what he meant. It's my lack of formal education. I understand now.

When I say "wrong and right" don't exist, what I mean is, there is a fact that there is no objective truth to determine that something is right or something is wrong.

If I said "It is wrong to steal" and gave some long winded opinion about why I thought that, this opinion could easily be refuted by someone who said it was "right to steal."

For example: It is wrong to steal because certain objects belong to people or have value to people - I could then say, it is right to steal because I want these objects.

This argument could then go on and on and on, but the fact is, no one is wrong here, but equally and no one is right. To the two people arguing they have the same opinions, except in reverse, negating each others belief and thus objectivity.

This is further proven by the fact that, although someone says "it is wrong to kill" this moral becomes negated when that person needs to kill, again proving that there is no objective truth to the assertion "there is right and wrong".

Nothing is right and nothing is wrong or alternatively everything is right and everything is wrong. How can you base your behviour on such an inconsistency?

My basis of truth is objectivity and material facts

[Hiero]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2006, 10:35 PM
The point being, the world exists outside your head and at its very core of reality has no rules to it,
The world has rules. Gravity is a rule, conflict is a rule. If you put heat to water it will boil. These rules can not be broken.

In society, like the world we have rules, except the have a material base. So rather then your arguement which wants to discredit rules or hold that the do not exist, I take the arguement that changing the material base is the begining to changing societies rules.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Hiero+Oct 12 2006, 04:19 PM--> (Hiero @ Oct 12 2006, 04:19 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2006, 10:35 PM
The point being, the world exists outside your head and at its very core of reality has no rules to it,
The world has rules. Gravity is a rule, conflict is a rule. If you put heat to water it will boil. These rules can not be broken. [/b]
This discussion is in the context of human behaviour not physics.


So rather then your arguement which wants to discredit rules or hold that the do not exist, I take the arguement that changing the material base is the begining to changing societies rules.

You're missing the point. I'm not denying that human beings create rules, I'm denying that they are objective and thus not real

You want to get rid of one set of human rules and replace them for another set - one set of subjective standards for another.

Which of these standards is true? The answer is neither of them.

[Hiero]

This discussion is in the context of human behaviour not physics.

The term world refers to the natural and all non natural things inside. I had reason to belief you made a obviously wrong, so I had to recorrect on these grounds.


You're missing the point. I'm not denying that human beings create rules, I'm denying that they are objective and thus not real

You want to get rid of one set of human rules and replace them for another set - one set of subjective standards for another.

Which of these standards is true? The answer is neither of them.

Im not sure about true, I don't really want to discuss that. But in the socialist society for the proletariat certain things will be the right thing to do which were once the wrong thing to do. For example, holding back on information which could benifit society. In capitalism holding back or copy righting such things as technology or medicines is benifical for profit. In socialism this is morally wrong.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 04:56 PM
Im not sure about true, I don't really want to discuss that. But in the socialist society for the proletariat certain things will be the right thing to do which were once the wrong thing to do. For example, holding back on information which could benifit society. In capitalism holding back or copy righting such things as technology or medicines is benifical for profit. In socialism this is morally wrong.
What's your point?

[Enragé]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Oct 11 2006, 10:59 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Oct 11 2006, 10:59 AM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 01:28 AM
having morals is simply having a concept of right and wrong


The point is, there is no "right" or "wrong". Morals are not a constant and you cannot standardise human behaviour in absolutes.

You might think killing a person is wrong, but it what if it's necessary? If you agree but still maintain that it is wrong, then what purpose does this moral actually serve? It seems irrelevant.


i see nothing wrong with that.

It's not necessarily wrong, it's just not a truth. What I mean is, it's not an objective way of looking at human interaction or behaviour nor is it realistic to assume that morals can be absolutes.

Pacifists believe it is immoral to use violence and uphold their moralism in every situation. That's not noble, it's absurd. Violence is necessary and in that case it should be used.

Morals serve no purpose in the context of reality other than to create false standards in which humans pretend to maintain.


the point is that we should not base our morals on baseless crap like the bible.

What should be base them on then? [/b]
base them on freedom

as in
everyone has a fundamental right to be free (though he gives up that right should he infringe on the freedom of others; for instance, the bourgeoisie, a dictator, any oppressor of any kind, a wifebeater, child abuser etc)
anything that harms that freedom, is bad
anything that strenghtens it, is beneficial to it, is good
anything that does neither, is irrelevant (though it doesnt mean it cant be fun)

freedom-based consequentialism?

Therefore killing a man is wrong, since it takes away his freedom, UNLESS that man/woman oppressed someone else and the only way to make it stop was to kill him (you forfeit your freedom as soon as you take away someone else's freedom)


i agree with you on the pacifism thing, but i do think that we need a concept from which to start, from which to build every other system, and yes that amounts to morals.

If you're just going to say that everything is relative, subjective, that there should be no morals, then people could just take advantage of eachother, oppress eachother, who cares? what the fuck would be "wrong" with that since "wrong" is a nonsensical idea, it doesnt exist.
exploitation nor oppression nor anything else could be wrong, since there is no such thing as "wrong"

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 09:31 PM
everyone has a fundamental right to be free
Says who?


(though he gives up that right should he infringe on the freedom of others; for instance, the bourgeoisie, a dictator, any oppressor of any kind, a wifebeater, child abuser etc)

I'm generally down with that idea, but not without understand what it is.


Therefore killing a man is wrong, since it takes away his freedom, UNLESS that man/woman oppressed someone else and the only way to make it stop was to kill him

So you're saying killing someone is both wrong and right at the same time?


If you're just going to say that everything is relative, subjective

Not everything is relative or subjective. But every idea and concept etc that comes from our mind is relative or subjective?

Except materialism, which is in itself a truth.


that there should be no morals, then people could just take advantage of eachother, oppress eachother...

People do that already and there are lots of morals floating around.


...who cares?

You care, clearly. Do you not think human beings have the same ability?


what the fuck would be "wrong" with that since "wrong" is a nonsensical idea, it doesnt exist.

I'm not saying it's nonsensical. It makes "sense" in many different ways and for many different reasons.

Are you saying that if people didn't have a set of rules governing their actions that they would start killing and raping people?


exploitation nor oppression nor anything else could be wrong, since there is no such thing as "wrong"

Those things aren't wrong. Nothing is wrong. Those things aren't very nice or particularly fair if you don't like starving to death or being poor.

I want to smash capitalism because it stops me from doing what I want and hurts my friends and family.

Why do you want to smash it?

[Hiero]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Oct 13 2006, 03:05 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Oct 13 2006, 03:05 AM)
[email protected] 12 2006, 04:56 PM
Im not sure about true, I don't really want to discuss that. But in the socialist society for the proletariat certain things will be the right thing to do which were once the wrong thing to do. For example, holding back on information which could benifit society. In capitalism holding back or copy righting such things as technology or medicines is benifical for profit. In socialism this is morally wrong.
What's your point? [/b]
Morals are normal, get over yourself, I wonder if Nihilists wear black? Something like that.

Look at this statement.


It's not the only answer. Nihilsim doesn't necessarily negate the possibility of wanting human progress, it simply proposes that neither one opinion is of any greater value than the other.

Then nihilsim is a bourgeois ideology of the privileged. Do you think that poor have starved workers would agree with that statement? People earning their full wage, a society meeting the needs of their people is of greater vaule no matter how you look at it, unless you are currently in a privileged position. In that case crack couldn't distort anymore a twisted idea on human progress. Are you even a nihilist? I doubt someone who has been to Africa as a volunteer could be a nihilist.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 04:54 AM

Morals are normal, get over yourself, I wonder if Nihilists wear black? Something like that.
That's a pretty stupid point to make in the context of this thread, don't you think. Who cares if they're normal? Sexism is "normal"...


Then nihilsim is a bourgeois ideology of the privileged.

A bourgeois ideology? Can you explain how it's a bourgeois ideology?

I agree, it is something that privileged people can enjoy but as anyone with an ounce of sense can tell you , those who are privileged always have the luxury of thinking.


Do you think that poor have starved workers would agree with that statement? People earning their full wage, a society meeting the needs of their people is of greater vaule no matter how you look at it, unless you are currently in a privileged position.

So something is valuable and not valuable at the same time? Could you not say that those who wanted to stop people from eating would class their opinion as valuable too? In which case both opinions are valuable, but the opinion on your opinion and on their opinion is that it is not valuable and both those opinions are right to both of you as with the other opinion in reverse: Both opinions are valuable and not valuable at the same time.

There's no truth in what you say and this is the entire point.


Are you even a nihilist? I doubt someone who has been to Africa as a volunteer could be a nihilist.

I think my opinion on this is too complicated to be labelled. I am a nihilist in some ways, but not in others.

Incidentally, it was while in Africa that I realised what worthlessness value had.

[Enragé]

Says who?

We need a starting point, which is always going to be inherently based on nothing, since for it to be a starting point means that nothing logically precedes it in reasoning.

I just think that thats the best point to start from.

Maybe you could justify it by the idea that because everyone inherently makes conscious decisions, any infringement on that is contrary to human nature.

(just made that up ;) )


So you're saying killing someone is both wrong and right at the same time?

the concept of killing someone is neither wrong or right
what makes it wrong or right are the circumstances under which it is done

to kill, is to take away freedom (to live), therefore it in normal circumstances is wrong, however
if the to-be-killed person takes away freedom from others, he forfeits his own freedom, therefore it would not only be not-wrong, but in the interest of protecting freedom (of others), therefore right.


Not everything is relative or subjective. But every idea and concept etc that comes from our mind is relative or subjective?

Except materialism, which is in itself a truth.

Materialism comes from our mind too.

How i percieve things is not the same as you do, in fact i cant possibly know if the color YOU call red actually LOOKS the same to you as it does to me (for all i know it looks green to you [that is what i would call green])

Material reality comes from our mind too
maybe we're all dreaming, maybe nothing is real
you can prove to me any of this is real, you cant prove to my anything actually exists!

the point is, if you reason like this everything is in vain, nothing makes sense, why do anything? Why even reason like that?
Such reasoning is irrelevant in practice, so why bother with it?


People do that already and there are lots of morals floating around.

i mean if it were to become the prevailing opinion


You care, clearly. Do you not think human beings have the same ability?


Sure, but i care from my viewpoint; that is, the viewpoint of someone raised with certain morals, that some things are wrong, just wrong (racism, oppression, inequality) and other things are right (solidarity, love, freedom, and all that hippy crap)
I actually feel those things to be either wrong or right, since it has been so engrained in my system, my mind, my "heart".

And so do other people

Were "non-morality" to become standard, there would be no wrong, no right. Everyone would/could be like certain "extreme" cappies; who cares if the "weak" die, who cares if 90% of society gets exploited from cradly to grave
whom we call "sick fucks", as they most definately are.

Why? because they threaten the freedom of others, they actually think its "ok" to take away the freedom of others because they are "weak"

you could say to that
"who gives a fuck? what does that matter? why would taking away freedom be "wrong"?"

to which we could only reply
" because everyone inherently makes conscious decisions, any infringement on that is contrary to human nature."

but im sure that can be ripped to pieces as well

and we'd only be left with saying "fuck you, just you wait, we wont let our freedom be repressed for much longer"


In other words, certain morality is "necessary", or at least unavoidable if you want a "decent" society (yes, now we can go on about what is "decent" or not, by what do you define decent etc...its a neverending debate. It would come down to "decent is when freedom of all is what society is built around" and that in the end would be a baseless argument as well, so, again, a neverending, and thus actually pointless debate)


Are you saying that if people didn't have a set of rules governing their actions that they would start killing and raping people?


no
People are not only bound by rules imposed on them
they are also influenced by what society around them thinks of them,
by their upbringing,
by the morals, the ideas of what is right and what is wrong, being engrained in them, to such a degree that they do not even realise it, that its inherent to their character, their being, to such a degree that people feel something is wrong, or right.

There are tribes in remote regions where the men are the "weaker sex", where they are the soft, kind, gentle creatures women over here still lean towards (and most definitely expected to be like) despite some advances in emancipation.
That shows for one that "female" behaviour has nothing to do with being female, and also (more to the point of the discussion) that indoctrination, upbringing, the engraining of morals can happen to such an extent that it is not only percieved to be natural by others but also by the person in question (e.g women)

Which means that even without rules imposed from above, "rules" or "morals" still most definitely have a lot of impact, to the point that it will stop people from doing things "because it doesnt feel right", i.e that their engrained morals come in to direct conflict with the thing that would've been done otherwise.



I want to smash capitalism because it stops me from doing what I want and hurts my friends and family.

Why do you want to smash it?

Pretty much the same
it limits the freedom of both myself and the people i love (and on a broader scale most people on the world, who have the right to be free as well)

but
why do you care about your friends and family?
because it was engrained in your system, by upbringing and by societal influences, therefore by morals, that it is "right" to do that...
whether you realise it or not.
even if you deny it, thats still the case

[The Feral Underclass]

I want to reply to your post, but I just can't be bothered right now. It kinda comes and goes.

I will reply eventually though, sorry :)

[Enragé]

hahaha ok

i know the feeling