Nihilism

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I suppose that when you tell us that the things you say are "human fantasies" you are presuming to tell us the truth.

So, you can't be a nihilist, or you would not try to educate us in this way.

Either that, or as I alleged above, there is no way that nihilism can be made coherent.

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 12:33 pm
I suppose that when you tell us that the things you say are "human fantasies" you are presuming to tell us the truth.

So, you can't be a nihilist, or you would not try to educate us in this way.

Either that, or as I alleged above, there is no way that nihilism can be made coherent.

I suppose that when you tell us that the things you say are "human fantasies" you are presuming to tell us the truth.

So, you can't be a nihilist, or you would not try to educate us in this way.

Either that, or as I alleged above, there is no way that nihilism can be made coherent.

Actually I just expressing my opinions,interpretations and expiriences of life

Whether you grasp anything for yourself I couldn't care less.


Either that, or as I alleged above, there is no way that nihilism can be made coherent.

Why is that?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AA:


Actually I just expressing my opinions,interpretations and expiriences of life

Well is this then true?


Whether you grasp anything for yourself I couldn't care less.

I suspect not, or you would have ignored me.


Why is that?

Well, read what I posted and then 'care less'.

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 08:34 pm
AA:


Actually I just expressing my opinions,interpretations and expiriences of life

Well is this then true?


Whether you grasp anything for yourself I couldn't care less.

I suspect not, or you would have ignored me.


Why is that?

Well, read what I posted and then 'care less'.

Well is this then true?

My opinions are certainly real but I don't like the word truth since I view the whole world to be a fixture of uncertainty.

For all I know the assumptions that I hold could be completely meaningless but as a rule this goes for all human beings including yourself.


I suspect not, or you would have ignored me.

I could ignore you but at the moment I'm enjoying the conversation.


Well, read what I posted and then 'care less'.

I did read it but I found a lack of clarity in the foundation of your opposition.

Perhaps you could enlighten me.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AA, I think you can guess what I am about to ask:


My opinions are certainly real but I don't like the word truth since I view the whole world to be a fixture of uncertainty.

Is this true then?

If it is, then you are no nihilist.

If it isn't we can ignore it.

You may not like the word 'truth' but it sorts out the confused from the frivolous.


For all I know the assumptions that I hold could be completely meaningless but as a rule this goes for all human beings including yourself.

If so, you would not be able to understand them, and thus use them.


I could ignore you but at the moment I'm enjoying the conversation.

So, you could care less.


I did read it but I found a lack of clarity in the foundation of your opposition.

Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Not without the use of a shocking word, your tender eyes cannot gaze upon: 'truth' :o

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 08:49 pm
AA, I think you can guess what I am about to ask:


My opinions are certainly real but I don't like the word truth since I view the whole world to be a fixture of uncertainty.

Is this true then?

If it is, then you are no nihilist.,

If it isn't we can ignore it.

You may not like the word 'truth' but it sorts out the confused from the frivolous.


For all I know the assumptions that I hold could be completely meaningless but as a rule this goes for all human beings including yourself.

If so, you would not be able to understand them, and thus use them.


I could ignore you but at the moment I'm enjoying the conversation.

So, you could care less.


I did read it but I found a lack of clarity in the foundation of your opposition.

Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Not without the use of a shocking word, your tender eyes cannot gaze upon: 'truth' :o

Is this true then?

As I said my interpretations are real.

Why should I use terms like true or truth? What exactly are the functions of such words?


You may not like the word 'truth' but it sorts out the confused from the frivolous.

The word truth is the opium of the masses to keep them in subjugation.

All truth is based off of uncertainty so I just skip the whole archaic perspective to what people perceive to be true claiming uncertainty as my guidance of life instead.


If so, you would not be able to understand them, and thus use them.

Explain.


So, you could care less.

Huh?


Not without the use of a shocking word, your tender eyes cannot gaze upon: 'truth'

I am sure my tender virgin eyes can handle a person like yourself trying to explain the view of truth. Please try me.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AA:


As I said my interpretations are real.

Why should I use terms like true or truth? What exactly are the functions of such words?

Well, it seems to me you are using "real" as a synonym for "true".

I hope you deny this, since denial involves rejecting the truth of what it said...


The word truth is the opium of the masses to keep them in subjugation.

So, you say, but is this true?

If it is, you are no nihilist.

If it isn't, we can ignore it.


All truth is based off of uncertainty so I just skip the whole archaic perspective to what people perceive to be true claiming uncertainty as my guidance of life instead.

So, you do know what truth is to be able to state a truth about it?


Explain.

Do you want the truth?

If you do, I will accept your resignation from the nihilist society.

If you do not, I won't bother trying.


I am sure my tender virgin eyes can handle a person like yourself trying to explain the view of truth. Please try me.

I repeat:

Do you want the truth?

If you do, I will accept your resignation from the nihilist society.

If you do not, I won't bother trying.

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 09:13 pm
AA:


As I said my interpretations are real.

Why should I use terms like true or truth? What exactly are the functions of such words?

Well, it seems to me you are using "real" as a synonym for "true".

I hope you deny this, since denial involves rejecting the truth of what it said...


The word truth is the opium of the masses to keep them in subjugation.

So, you say, but is this true?

If it is, you are no nihilist.

If it isn't, we can ignore it.


All truth is based off of uncertainty so I just skip the whole archaic perspective to what people perceive to be true claiming uncertainty as my guidance of life instead.

So, you do know what truth is to be able to state a truth about it?


Explain.

Do you want the truth?

If you do, I will accept your resignation from the nihilist society.

If you do not, I won't bother trying.


I am sure my tender virgin eyes can handle a person like yourself trying to explain the view of truth. Please try me.

I repeat:

Do you want the truth?

If you do, I will accept your resignation from the nihilist society.

If you do not, I won't bother trying.

Well, it seems to me you are using "real" as a synonym for "true".

I hope you deny this, since denial involves rejecting the truth of what it said...

There is a difference in saying somthing exists in the real sense versus saying somthing is truth in that it supercedes all reality.



So, you say, but is this true?

Actually it is just another delightful personal interpretation.


So, you do know what truth is to be able to state a truth about it?

Why such the obsession with truth?

Also,

Uncertainty doesn't leave any room for truth since such a state there is no certainty.


Do you want the truth?

If you do, I will accept your resignation from the nihilist society.

If you do not, I won't bother trying.

I would certainly like to hear your interpretation of truth. :lol:

As for accepting it like the word of God for proselytism no thanks.

If you choose to ignore me don't worry I won't lose any sleep over it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AA:


There is a difference in saying somthing exists in the real sense versus saying somthing is truth in that it supercedes all reality.

So, you are saying that I did not speak the truth?

In that case, you must have.

So, once more you are no nihilist!

And, what is this but another truth from the nihil-meister:


Actually it is just another delightful personal interpretation.

:o


Why such the obsession with truth?

Once more:

Do you want the truth?

If you do, I will accept your resignation from the nihilist society.

If you do not, I won't bother trying.


Uncertaintly doesn't leave any room for truth since such a state there is no certainty.

This is mere opinion, so I will take no heed of it...

Unless you meant to assert it as true??


I would certainly like to hear your interpretation of truth.

So, you are no nihilist then? You truly want the truth from me?


As for accepting it like the word of God for proselytism no thanks.

EH??

OMG, this is a wind up -- another truth from this aletho-phobic:


If you choose to ignore me don't worry I won't lose any sleep over it.

[Luís Henrique]

To be coherent, a nihilist should committ suicide. Otherwise, s/he is evidently still under the influence of normative thought.

Luís Henrique

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 19, 2007 05:32 am
To be coherent, a nihilist should committ suicide. Otherwise, s/he is evidently still under the influence of normative thought.

Luís Henrique
Or maybe they should just kill everybody else. :rolleyes: <_<

With everybody dead we wouldn&#39;t have to worry about coherence.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Arkham [email protected] 19, 2007 05:44 am
Or maybe they should just kill everybody else. :rolleyes: <_<
Is there a difference? If not, why do something so troublesome and tiring as killing everybody, when you can attain the same result by killing only one person? And without fear of retribution or punishment?

If there is a difference... what difference it makes?


With everybody dead we wouldn&#39;t have to worry about coherence.

Ahm, no. Coherence isn&#39;t an external demand. The only people who in fact don&#39;t worry about coherence are the dead, they don&#39;t worry about anything.

Which means, the only true nihilists are the dead. That&#39;s why a nihilist that doesn&#39;t committ suicide can be safely discarded as a poseur.

Luís Henrique

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+June 19, 2007 06:04 am--> (Luís Henrique &#064; June 19, 2007 06:04 am)
Arkham [email protected] 19, 2007 05:44 am
Or maybe they should just kill everybody else.* :rolleyes:* <_<
Is there a difference? If not, why do something so troublesome and tiring as killing everybody, when you can attain the same result by killing only one person? And without fear of retribution or punishment?

If there is a difference... what difference it makes?


With everybody dead we wouldn&#39;t have to worry about coherence.

Ahm, no. Coherence isn&#39;t an external demand. The only people who in fact don&#39;t worry about coherence are the dead, they don&#39;t worry about anything.

Which means, the only true nihilists are the dead. That&#39;s why a nihilist that doesn&#39;t committ suicide can be safely discarded as a poseur.

Luís Henrique [/b]

Is there a difference? If not, why do something so troublesome and tiring as killing everybody, when you can attain the same result by killing only one person? And without fear of retribution or punishment?

If there is a difference... what difference it makes?

Maybe it would be more pleasurable and entertaining.


true nihilists

True nihilism is a contradiction.


Ahm, no. Coherence isn&#39;t an external demand. The only people who in fact don&#39;t worry about coherence are the dead, they don&#39;t worry about anything.

You seem to be talking about a coherence that has a obligation.

How do you see it external? Just curious.


That&#39;s why a nihilist that doesn&#39;t committ suicide can be safely discarded as a poseur.

For some reason I am sitting in my chair thinking to myself you don&#39;t know what you are talking about.

[NewEast]

Has anyone else seen The Big Lebowski?



Donny: Are these the Nazis, Walter?
Walter Sobchak: No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there&#39;s nothing to be afraid of.
Nihilist: Ve don&#39;t care. Ve still vant ze money, Lebowski, or ve fuck you up.
Walter Sobchak: Fuck you. Fuck the three of you.
The Dude: Hey, cool it Walter.
Walter Sobchak: No, without a hostage, there is no ransom. That&#39;s what ransom is. Those are the fucking rules.
Nihilist #2: His girlfriend gave up her toe&#33;
Nihilist #3: She thought we&#39;d be getting million dollars&#33;
Nihilist #2: Iss not fair&#33;
Walter Sobchak: Fair&#33; WHO&#39;S THE FUCKING NIHILIST HERE&#33; WHAT ARE YOU, A BUNCH OF FUCKING CRYBABIES?


That&#39;s about the extent of intellectual thought that I&#39;ll grant those people.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Arkham [email protected] 19, 2007 06:17 am
Maybe it would be more pleasurable and entertaining.
This is hedonism (a much more respectable phylosophical/existencial position), not nihilism. A true nihilist doesn&#39;t care about pleasure and entertainment.


True nihilism is a contradiction.

Normative thought. A clear attempt to subject the interlocutor to that arbitrary thing, logic.


You seem to be talking about a coherence that has a obligation.

If you worry about coherence, to the point that you would kill everybody else just to be able to stop worrying... then you must feel coherence as a very strict obligation.


How do you see it external? Just curious.

The point is, it is not external. If you truly don&#39;t care about coherence, you also don&#39;t care about other people demanding you coherence. If you care about other people demanding coherence from you, it can only be because you care abot coherence yourself.


For some reason I am sitting in my chair thinking to myself you don&#39;t know what you are talking about.

But of course I don&#39;t. Nobody can really know about nihilism; as you aptly pointed out, "true nihilism is a contradiction".

And, as such, it cannot be known.

So, I can&#39;t care less about the fact that I don&#39;t know anything about nihilism.

In fact, there is nothing else to be known about nihilism beyond nothing.

It is in the word itself.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Arkham [email protected] 19, 2007 06:53 am
Wow a movie quotation.
So there is a hierarchy of quotations, that would make a quotation of, say, the Bible, or Also Spracht Zaratustra, or Shakespeare, more valid than a movie quotation?

What system of values informs such hierarchy? How do you decide if it is more appropriate to quote the Book of Job or a Tijuana Bible?

Why does nihilism never fail to come along with elitism... if it is utterly incompatible with elitism?

Luís Henrique

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+June 19, 2007 06:31 am--> (Luís Henrique &#064; June 19, 2007 06:31 am)
Arkham [email protected] 19, 2007 06:17 am
Maybe it would be more pleasurable and entertaining.
This is hedonism (a much more respectable phylosophical/existencial position), not nihilism. A true nihilist doesn&#39;t care about pleasure and entertainment.


True nihilism is a contradiction.

Normative thought. A clear attempt to subject the interlocutor to that arbitrary thing, logic.


You seem to be talking about a coherence that has a obligation.

If you worry about coherence, to the point that you would kill everybody else just to be able to stop worrying... then you must feel coherence as a very strict obligation.


How do you see it external?* Just curious.

The point is, it is not external. If you truly don&#39;t care about coherence, you also don&#39;t care about other people demanding you coherence. If you care about other people demanding coherence from you, it can only be because you care abot coherence yourself.


For some reason I am sitting in my chair thinking to myself you don&#39;t know what you are talking about.

But of course I don&#39;t. Nobody can really know about nihilism; as you aptly pointed out, "true nihilism is a contradiction".

And, as such, it cannot be known.

So, I can&#39;t care less about the fact that I don&#39;t know anything about nihilism.

In fact, there is nothing else to be known about nihilism beyond nothing.

It is in the word itself.

Luís Henrique [/b]

This is hedonism (a much more respectable phylosophical/existencial position), not nihilism. A true nihilist doesn&#39;t care about pleasure and entertainment.

Individual variations of nihilism exist. How would you know what a nihilist cares about?

Are you a nihilist?


Normative thought. A clear attempt to subject the interlocutor to that arbitrary thing, logic.

Explain that as I have a hard time understanding short metaphors.


If you worry about coherence, to the point that you would kill everybody else just to be able to stop worrying... then you must feel coherence as a very strict obligation.

The only thing I feel is utter ridiculous of humanity.


The point is, it is not external. If you truly don&#39;t care about coherence, you also don&#39;t care about other people demanding you coherence. If you care about other people demanding coherence from you, it can only be because you care abot coherence yourself.

That doesn&#39;t make sense to me. Can you elaborate?

[Module]

LH, you will notice pretty quickly that our pseudo-nihilst friend here will ask you to &#39;elaborate&#39; on anything that puts him on the defensive.

Of course, that just sinks him further into the mire, since, as I pointed out to him, such a request is one that seeks the truth from you, which he denies exists (or he &#39;renames&#39; it "real", as if that makes much difference) -- an inconsistent position he uses as the mood takes him.
Instead of asking for the &#39;truth&#39; from you, isn&#39;t he asking for your personal opinion? Your perspective? That doesn&#39;t necessarily mean he believes it to be a truth.
And if he doesn&#39;t necessarily believe your persective is you saying it truthfully, it that a necessary requirement for argument? Or can he just reply to whatever you&#39;re saying, be it truth or not?


So, like the pretend nihilist he is, he hops in and out of a pseudo-objective world, using discourse based on truth/falsehood when it suits, but denying he does that when he thinks he can get away with it.
I don&#39;t exactly see why he can&#39;t get away with it?
He can deny he cares, and there&#39;s no reason why he wouldn&#39;t because it wouldn&#39;t really effect him whatever you may say, whereever he may be, but that doesn&#39;t mean he can&#39;t be curious as to what you have to say, does it? Maybe he believes you&#39;re all some kind of hallucination, for example. Does having the belief you don&#39;t exist mean that he can&#39;t possibly want to involve himself with you only because he doesn&#39;t think you&#39;re real? He obviously thinks he is real. Couldn&#39;t this just be him satifying his own curiosity?


[And as soon as he denies this is true, it will confirm it. :lol: ]
I&#39;m quite sure that if there would be one truth, it would be that there is no other truth. So if he&#39;s denying him being a "plonkerist" because it can&#39;t possibly be true because there is no truth, can&#39;t he also use the reasoning using your own belief of what is true, whether or not he believes it himself? And isn&#39;t his denying he is a plonkerist something he could also say is his personal perspective, rather than a &#39;truth&#39;? His perception of what is truth may not be what he ultimately acknowledges as absolute truth, rather what is important to him to satisfy his own needs?

(Not a nihilist, don&#39;t worry. Just... yes. :lol: :mellow: :unsure: )

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 12, 2007 05:35 pm
Nihilism cannot be right, for it claims nothing is true, and that must include nihilism

End of story.
That&#39;s a ridiculous misunderstanding. Nihilism posits that nothing that is unprovable is true. There is a vast difference. That includes belief structures etc.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAT:


Instead of asking for the &#39;truth&#39; from you, isn&#39;t he asking for your personal opinion? Your perspective? That doesn&#39;t necessarily mean he believes it to be a truth.

He might be, but then he wants me to report it truly....


And if he doesn&#39;t necessarily believe your persective is you saying it truthfully, it that a necessary requirement for argument? Or can he just reply to whatever you&#39;re saying, be it truth or not?

That is why I posed a dilemma: if he wants my true opinion, he is no nihilist. If he does not, I can&#39;t be bothered responding.

Now, he will have to take that as a true expression of the options I am holding open to him.

Once more: if he does, he is no nihilist; if he does not then he holds this as a false representation of the options.

And if he understands falsehood, he understands truth.


I don&#39;t exactly see why he can&#39;t get away with it?

He can try to, but his words must collapse into incoherence at some point -- in his case, almost from the get-go.


He can deny he cares, and there&#39;s no reason why he wouldn&#39;t because it wouldn&#39;t really effect him whatever you may say, whereever he may be, but that doesn&#39;t mean he can&#39;t be curious as to what you have to say, does it? Maybe he believes you&#39;re all some kind of hallucination, for example. Does having the belief you don&#39;t exist mean that he can&#39;t possibly want to involve himself with you only because he doesn&#39;t think you&#39;re real? He obviously thinks he is real. Couldn&#39;t this just be him satifying his own curiosity?

Curiosity over what?

As soon as you say, back comes the incoherence.


I&#39;m quite sure that if there would be one truth, it would be that there is no other truth. So if he&#39;s denying him being a "plonkerist" because it can&#39;t possibly be true because there is no truth, can&#39;t he also use the reasoning using your own belief of what is true, whether or not he believes it himself? And isn&#39;t his denying he is a plonkerist something he could also say is his personal perspective, rather than a &#39;truth&#39;? His perception of what is truth may not be what he ultimately acknowledges as absolute truth, rather what is important to him to satisfy his own needs?

Is your first sentence true? If it is, then this is true: "TAT&#39;s first sentence is true".

That&#39;s two truths.

So, this is true: there are at least two truths....

With an inductive clause we could thus generate a potentially infinite set of truths.

If it is false, then this would be true:

TAT&#39;s first sentence is false -- and we&#39;d get the same result as above.

The problem with nihilists (or, if I may say so, those who try to defend them, insincerely in your case :) ) is that they treat a public medium (language) as if it were a private code they can do with what they like.

As the above shows, that is where the incoherence enters, and cannot fail to enter.

Finally, his reasoning about my beliefs is parasitic on his having truly assesed them, and we are back to square one. :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAT:


That&#39;s a ridiculous misunderstanding. Nihilism posits that nothing that is unprovable is true. There is a vast difference. That includes belief structures etc.

Ah, well, then nihilsim has changed since I last studied it.

But how is what you describe different from, say, positivism???

[And that, of course, means AA is no nihilist.]

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Arkham [email protected] 19, 2007 08:10 am

I will have the last laugh. Enjoy these moments of scorn.
And how will we know you are having the last laugh if nothing is true?

Anyway seeing as you are not interested in untying the philosophical knots Rosa has tied you in, I will try you from a political side.

Seeing as you are on this board (then again we don&#39;t really know that, do we?) you are presumably a Communist or anarchist or at least some sort of leftist. Which means you want to liberate the working classes around the world. If the world is devoid of meaning, why bother?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 19, 2007 12:18 pm
TAT:


That&#39;s a ridiculous misunderstanding. Nihilism posits that nothing that is unprovable is true. There is a vast difference. That includes belief structures etc.

Ah, well, then nihilsim has changed since I last studied it.
No it hasn&#39;t. What you studied was just wrong.


But how is what you describe different from, say, positivism???

I suppose in a way it isn&#39;t. I&#39;m sure you could make direct comparisons. Although Nihilism focuses on the rejection of untruths rather than the identification of truths.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 01:00 pm
If the world is devoid of meaning, why bother?
That&#39;s an unfair question. The world has no intrinsic meaning - that&#39;s a fact. That doesn&#39;t mean that you cannot make up a meaning for yourself.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAT:


What you studied was just wrong.

Not so. I can recall long debates on this very topic by card-carrying nihilists, who would not recognise your description of it.


Although Nihilism focuses on the rejection of untruths rather than the identification of truths.

As does positivism, I think.

So, what&#39;s the point of nihilism if it is no different?

[This hints at the fact that you might just have got this wrong, may I suggest?? :) ]

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:37 am
Instead of asking for the &#39;truth&#39; from you, isn&#39;t he asking for your personal opinion? Your perspective? That doesn&#39;t necessarily mean he believes it to be a truth.
And if he doesn&#39;t necessarily believe your persective is you saying it truthfully, it that a necessary requirement for argument? Or can he just reply to whatever you&#39;re saying, be it truth or not?
But what the point of asking for my opinion, from a nihilistic perspective?

Even if he does so just for kicks, there is an element of hedonism, which is anti-nihilistic, in the act of discussing just for pleasure.

And, also, even if he is asking for nothing more than an opinion - he must have some trust that I will give him my opinion, my true opinion (and not, for instance, fake a total insincere opinion just for the sake of it). In other words, he trusts mankind more than he would like to admit.


He can deny he cares, and there&#39;s no reason why he wouldn&#39;t because it wouldn&#39;t really effect him whatever you may say, whereever he may be, but that doesn&#39;t mean he can&#39;t be curious as to what you have to say, does it?

I would say that curiosity and nihilism are mutually exclusive.


Maybe he believes you&#39;re all some kind of hallucination, for example.

That would be solipsism, not nihilism. True, nihilism is just solipsism with a passion, but that only makes it more absurd.

I can see the point of those who dwell in the impossibility of proving the existence of a material world; it is absurd but it has some internal coherence. I can&#39;t see the point of those who aknowledge the existence of the material world, declare that it is infinitely boring, that nothing in it is worth the pain, that human kind is totally ridiculous - and then go on engaging in discussing with ridiculous pieces of that ridiculous humanity. Not to talk about engaging in the general boredom of eating, drinking, having sex, posting in the internet, etc...

Luís Henrique

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2007 12:17 pm
The world has no intrinsic meaning - that&#39;s a fact.
I do hope that was intentional irony

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 19, 2007 01:44 pm
TAT:


What you studied was just wrong.

Not so. I can recall long debates on this very topic by card-carrying nihilists, who would not recognise your description of it.
I&#39;m sure that they exist.


So, what&#39;s the point of nihilism if it is no different?

I didn&#39;t say there was no difference, I said that you could draw direct comparisons. Nihilism is an existential and/or political philosophy and those respects differ greatly.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+June 19, 2007 02:33 pm--> (Demogorgon @ June 19, 2007 02:33 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2007 12:17 pm
The world has no intrinsic meaning - that&#39;s a fact.
I do hope that was intentional irony [/b]
Recognising the fact that existence etc has no intrinsic meaning does not constitute meaning.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 01:52 am

Nihilism is upsurd. I used to identify with it and I can understand the rejection of christian so-called "morality" but that doesn&#39;t mean we should reject all morality. We should uphold proletarian morality. Things like &#39;serve the people&#39; and &#39;don&#39;t steal a needle or thread from the masses/working class&#39;

The least imoral thing that we could do would be to allow every so called proletarian to determine their own morality for themselves rather than some ideology which seeks to gain power by speaking for them.
no there is a code of proletarian morality

Points of Discipline for Party Members (http://revcom.us/a/ideology/discip-e.htm)
The Three Main Rules of Discipline and the Eight Rules of Attention (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-4/mswv4_23.htm)

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2007 02:02 pm

Recognising the fact that existence etc has no intrinsic meaning does not constitute meaning.
If there is no intrinsic meaning, there are no facts. Including the supposed fact that there is no intrinsic meaning.

Nihilism is inherently paradoxical.

Of course you seem to be more a positivist anyway, so I doubt it matters for your views.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+June 19, 2007 04:10 pm--> (Demogorgon &#064; June 19, 2007 04:10 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2007 02:02 pm

Recognising the fact that existence etc has no intrinsic meaning does not constitute meaning.
If there is no intrinsic meaning, there are no facts. [/b]
That makes no logical sense. How does this conclusion follow each other?


Including the supposed fact that there is no intrinsic meaning.

Again, I don&#39;t understand your logic?


Nihilism is inherently paradoxical.

What is your argument?


Of course you seem to be more a positivist anyway, so I doubt it matters for your views.

I&#39;m not a positivist. I know very little about it in fact.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2007 04:34 pm

That makes no logical sense. How does this conclusion follow each other?

If nothing has meaning, everything simply comes down to how you want to see it, with nothing being correct. Under such circumstances, solid facts cannot possibly exist, a statement of fact must be meaningful after all. If nothing is meaningful there can hardly be facts, can there?
I&#39;m not a positivist. I know very little about it in fact.Evidently then you have arived at positivism on your own rather than simply by reading about it. Your earlier statement about accepting provable facts indicates that you are much closer to positivism than nihilism, which doesn&#39;t accept anything at all.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I think one or two of you are mixing up several different senses of meaning (some of these overlap, and it&#39;s not an exhaustive list):

(1) Significance or importance: as in “His Teddy Bear means a lot to him.”

(2) Evaluative import: as in “May Day means different things to different classes.”

(3) Point or purpose: as in “Life has no meaning.”

(4) Linguistic meaning: as in “‘Vixen’ means female fox.”

(5) Aim or intention: as in “They mean to win this strike.”

(6) Implication: as in “Winning that strike means the boss won’t try another wage cut again in a hurry.”

(7) Indicate, point to, or presage: as in “Those clouds mean rain.”

(8) Reference: as in “I mean him over there.”

(9) Artistic theme: as in “The whole meaning of this novel is to examine political integrity.”

(10) Conversational focus: as in “I mean, why do we have to accept a measly 1% rise in the first place?”

(11) An expression of sincerity or determination: as in “I mean it, I really do want to go on the demonstration&#33;”

(12) The content of a message, or the import of a sign: as in “It means that the strike starts on Monday”, or “It means you have to queue here.”

(13) Interpretation: as in “You will need to read the author’s novels if you want to give a meaning to her latest play.”

(14)The import of a work of art: as in “Part of the meaning of that play was to change our view of drama.”

So in some senses of the word, TAT is obviously right. In others, maybe not.

For example, clouds meant rain long before we (or any sentient life) evolved.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAT:


I&#39;m sure that they exist.

Aaaa..n..d...? <_<

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+June 19, 2007 12:00 pm--> (Demogorgon &#064; June 19, 2007 12:00 pm)
Arkham [email protected] 19, 2007 08:10 am

I will have the last laugh. Enjoy these moments of scorn.
And how will we know you are having the last laugh if nothing is true?

Anyway seeing as you are not interested in untying the philosophical knots Rosa has tied you in, I will try you from a political side.

Seeing as you are on this board (then again we don&#39;t really know that, do we?) you are presumably a Communist or anarchist or at least some sort of leftist. Which means you want to liberate the working classes around the world. If the world is devoid of meaning, why bother? [/b]


Why bother?

I am motivated by my hate of the world to be politically involved but at the same time I know the futility of the world that I understand all my actions could be meaningless in the larger scene of things.

I consider myself a Anarchist although I do admire many of Marx&#39;s writings.

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+June 19, 2007 03:10 pm--> (Demogorgon &#064; June 19, 2007 03:10 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2007 02:02 pm

Recognising the fact that existence etc has no intrinsic meaning does not constitute meaning.
If there is no intrinsic meaning, there are no facts. Including the supposed fact that there is no intrinsic meaning.

Nihilism is inherently paradoxical.

Of course you seem to be more a positivist anyway, so I doubt it matters for your views. [/b]
Facts along with rationality and logic are nothing more but assumptions or individual judgements built upon the principles of uncertainty.

Uncertainty is the starting point of all things.

There is no obligations, facts , oughts and foundations of the cosmos, but instead only interpretations or necessities

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Arkham [email protected] 19, 2007 07:44 pm
I am motivated by my hate of the world

This isn&#39;t a very helpful attitude, is it?
There is no obligations, facts , oughts and foundations of the cosmos but only interpretations and necessity.What basis is there for such a grandiose claim?

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+June 19, 2007 08:03 pm--> (Demogorgon &#064; June 19, 2007 08:03 pm)
Arkham [email protected] 19, 2007 07:44 pm
I am motivated by my hate of the world

There is no obligations, facts , oughts and foundations of the cosmos but only interpretations and necessity.What basis is there for such a grandiose claim?
This isn&#39;t a very helpful attitude, is it? [/b]
What would you like me to say?

Would you like me to lie, telling you everything will be alright in a positivist manner?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Arkham Asylum+June 19, 2007 08:27 pm--> (Arkham Asylum @ June 19, 2007 08:27 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:03 pm

Arkham [email protected] 19, 2007 07:44 pm
I am motivated by my hate of the world

There is no obligations, facts , oughts and foundations of the cosmos but only interpretations and necessity.What basis is there for such a grandiose claim?
This isn&#39;t a very helpful attitude, is it?
What would you like me to say?

Would you like me to lie, telling you everything will be alright in a positivist manner? [/b]
I ask again, what basis is there for such a claim? Have you been given some kind of insight the rest of us have not?

[MrSavage]

I read this article here:

http://www.socyberty.com/Politics/Is-Nihil...-That-Bad.30597 (http://www.socyberty.com/Politics/Is-Nihilism-All-That-Bad.30597)

Now what exactly are any of you guys&#39; opinions on Nihilism

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This has been discussed loads of times. The most recent is here:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67517

[JimFar]

Rosa asks concerning AA&#39;s notion of nihilism:


But how is what you describe different from, say, positivism???

Well Rosa may recall that in a not dissimilar discussion of nihilism last year. Back then, I pointed out how the word, nihilism, is one whose meaning has subtly changed over the years. When mid-19 century Russians spoke of nihilism, they meant an intellectual movement that rejected traditional ideas in politics, religion, and culture that could not be demonstrated by the methods of science. Russian nihilism was thus indeed very much influenced by positivist and materialist ideas that had filtered into Russia from the West, for example the ideas of Comte, J.S. Mill, Darwin, Ludwig Büchner, etc. Some nihilists like Pisarev were avowedly apolitical while others like Nikolai Chernyshevski were committed revolutionaries. Indeed, Chernyshevski, a man who was admired by Marx, was one of the founding fathers of revolutionary socialism in Russia. Russian nihilism helped to popularize among younger Russian intellectuals a pro-science, materialist outlook, and in so doing, helped to pave the way for introduction of Marxism into Russia.

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+June 19, 2007 08:45 pm--> (Demogorgon &#064; June 19, 2007 08:45 pm)
Originally posted by Arkham [email protected] 19, 2007 08:27 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:03 pm

Arkham [email protected] 19, 2007 07:44 pm
I am motivated by my hate of the world

There is no obligations, facts , oughts and foundations of the cosmos but only interpretations and necessity.What basis is there for such a grandiose claim?
This isn&#39;t a very helpful attitude, is it?
What would you like me to say?

Would you like me to lie, telling you everything will be alright in a positivist manner?
I ask again, what basis is there for such a claim? Have you been given some kind of insight the rest of us have not? [/b]
There is no God,afterlife,and objective morality.

Which would one should I substantiate first?

Also what people call progress, rationality and logic is also built upon individual judgements of desire with all three of those subjects unsubstantiated beyond the concepted desire.

Pick a topic. ( Think of it as the wheel of fortune. You get 10 points at each topic.)

( There is also a lightning round too after each discussion, and it is a real shocker.)

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Arkham [email protected] 20, 2007 02:08 am
There is no God,afterlife,
No, there is no God, and there is no afterlife.


and objective morality.

Of course, there is no objective morality. But the implicit conclusion you take from that premise - that morality is completely subjective, and, as such, completely relative and completely arbitrary does not follow.

For morality is intersubjective, which means its relativity is framed within social relations, and so is not arbitrary at all - it responds to class interests, and other social interests in a subordinate way.

Luís Henrique

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+June 20, 2007 02:29 am--> (Luís Henrique &#064; June 20, 2007 02:29 am)
Arkham [email protected] 20, 2007 02:08 am
There is no God,afterlife,
No, there is no God, and there is no afterlife.


and objective morality.

Of course, there is no objective morality. But the implicit conclusion you take from that premise - that morality is completely subjective, and, as such, completely relative and completely arbitrary does not follow.

For morality is intersubjective, which means its relativity is framed within social relations, and so is not arbitrary at all - it responds to class interests, and other social interests in a subordinate way.

Luís Henrique [/b]
I don&#39;t care about the subjective opinions of others or the intersubjective social frame that it is based on.

Oh dear, what shall I ever do?

I am going to hell I guess, oh wait already there. :lol:

When you are starving,living a life of poverty or living a ghost life as if you never existed Henry people&#39;s subjective opinions tend to just disappear into static.

Trust me guy.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 12, 2007 04:35 pm
Nihilism cannot be right, for it claims nothing is true, and that must include nihilism

End of story.
Pretty much. Nihilism can&#39;t really exist, as least not pure nihilism, because at its core it is basically "do-nothing-ism." It&#39;s used more as a descriptive term (nihilistic) than anything.

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by AndrewG+June 20, 2007 03:28 am--> (AndrewG &#064; June 20, 2007 03:28 am)
Rosa [email protected] 12, 2007 04:35 pm
Nihilism cannot be right, for it claims nothing is true, and that must include nihilism

End of story.
Pretty much. Nihilism can&#39;t really exist, as least not pure nihilism, because at its core it is basically "do-nothing-ism." It&#39;s used more as a descriptive term (nihilistic) than anything. [/b]
Pure nihilism is a contradiction. ( Sighs)


Nihilism is something that Flea from the Red Hot Chili Peppers practices when he stars in a Coen brothers movie as a really shitty actor in leather pants.

Californiacation.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim:


Well Rosa may recall that in a not dissimilar discussion of nihilism last year. Back then, I pointed out how the word, nihilism, is one whose meaning has subtly changed over the years. When mid-19 century Russians spoke of nihilism, they meant an intellectual movement that rejected traditional ideas in politics, religion, and culture that could not be demonstrated by the methods of science. Russian nihilism was thus indeed very much influenced by positivist and materialist ideas that had filtered into Russia from the West, for example the ideas of Comte, J.S. Mill, Darwin, Ludwig Büchner, etc. Some nihilists like Pisarev were avowedly apolitical while others like Nikolai Chernyshevski were committed revolutionaries. Indeed, Chernyshevski, a man who was admired by Marx, was one of the founding fathers of revolutionary socialism in Russia. Russian nihilism helped to popularize among younger Russian intellectuals a pro-science, materialist outlook, and in so doing, helped to pave the way for introduction of Marxism into Russia.

Thanks for that Jim; I was aware if some of it -- my question, though, was ad hominem, and aimed at TAT. I wanted to know his reasons for distinguishing the two.

Even so, there is no way that this pseudo-nihilist (AA) is as sophisticated (or as serious) as the guys you mention. :wacko:

Good to see you back, though&#33;

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AA:


Pure nihilism is a contradiction. ( Sighs)

Says who?

If this is merely your opinion, we can ignore it.

If it is true, you are no nihilist.

Anyway, I thought you were done with me,

Or has a stint under those skirts given you added courage?

This thread seems to have run out of steam.

I am closing it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In view of the fact that I closed the Nihilism thread down in Learning, if anyone has something new to add, they can post it here.

[BreadBros]

I&#39;d say somewhere between stupid and bad.

[Janus]

This thread seems to have run out of steam.
Not yet.
Merged.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+June 19, 2007 05:49 pm--> (Demogorgon &#064; June 19, 2007 05:49 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2007 04:34 pm

That makes no logical sense. How does this conclusion follow each other?

If nothing has meaning [/b]
I never said that. I said life has no intrinsic meaning.


Evidently then you have arived at positivism on your own rather than simply by reading about it. Your earlier statement about accepting provable facts indicates that you are much closer to positivism than nihilism, which doesn&#39;t accept anything at all.

The idea that Nihilists do not "accept" things is untrue although I accept there are people who use the word to define these beliefs.

As for me being a positvist, I do not accept that I am and in fact I have never made any statement about what I believe; only what Nihilists believe.

I don&#39;t mean to be rude, but I suggest paying more attention in future.