/lit/ - Literature

Guess not.

>>10179365
Nihilism itself; if everything is meaningless then why not?

There is no way in knowing that death is indeed the end. If meaning is reliant on the idea of eternity it would simply be false to assume that the spirit is not eternal. If meaning is not reliant on the idea of eternity, meaning is imprinted through the prism of perspective - to rely on somebody elses philosophy of inherent meaning to life is intellectually lazy. Not to say other philosphic structures cannot aide you in constructing your own, but you still must construct your own form of meaning.

Nihilism posits that life has no inherent meaning. Or, that life is completely "subjective." The issue is that this is an "objective" statement. You're basically saying all life is incoherent and meaningless except for this sentence.
So you might say that, well life has objective truths but we can never know what these objective truths are. But if it is an objective truth that we can't know objective truths, how can we know that?
So by contradiction it is coherent to say that there are objective truths and we have the faculties to know these truths.

>>10179956
Once you accept this my honest recommendation is to read the New Testament. Even just try the gospel of Matthew it is quite short.

>>10179956
Universal truth opposes relative truth. Objective truth would be truth about the objective world. So you can have a universal truth while claiming subjectivity of all of our life.

>>10179365
Objectivism is the best against it.

>>10179971
I don't see how this gives you any grand 'meaning' to life beyong self interest. I guess it could be installed on top of Nihilism.

>>10179967
Are you saying that there is an "objective" world and a "subjective" world? As in, certain things are objective (maths for example) and some things are subjective? I can agree that certain things are subjective (what's the best flavour of ice-cream) but that there are objective facts (my favourite flavour of ice-cream is X). If i'm completely missing the point of what you're saying can you clarify.

Or are you saying that "we can't know anything except for the fact that we can't know anything" is a sensible thing to believe?

My primary claim is that there are objective truths about the world that we have the faculty to discern them. This faculty being "reason"

>>10180007
>certain things are objective (maths for example)
>My primary claim is that there are objective truths about the world that we have the faculty to discern them. This faculty being "reason"
Hahah what the fuck

>>10180007
No. Things being subjective or objective depend on you being those things or not. The color red is subjective. The wavelength of light, the cones of our eyes and our visual cortex are objective. Us being the neural correlate of the experience in which red manifests would be our subjectivity.

What you mentioned in your previous post alluded to relative truth vs universal truth, not objective truth vs subjective truth. Or at least that seemed to be the case.

>>10180018
No such thing as subjective or objective truth or relative or universal truth.

>>10180025
What are you talking about? Those have definitions. Look them up. If you wanna argue one of those does not exist, go ahead. I am just pointing out differences between those concepts.

>>10180032
Yeah the definitions are correct. But there are no "truths".

>>10179365
It's going that one step beyond and realising that the rest of the universe should matter as little to you as you do to it. That star that burned out five billion years ago on the other side of the galaxy has no impact on your life, so why should you worry about it? If this existence is all we have, then we might as well do the best we can with it and accept our biological limitations. I don't need to be relevant to the rest of the universe to find happiness or a purpose for myself.

>>10180064
Pretty good.

>>10180000
Simple; one merely need recognize that life is an end in itself.
There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible; it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of “Life” that makes the concept of “Value” possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil. Only a living entity can have goals or can originate them. And it is only a living organism that has the capacity for self-generated, goal-directed action. The goal of that action, the ultimate value which, to be kept, must be gained through its every moment, is the organism’s life. And in the case of Man with his unique conceptual faculty of volitional conciousness; happiness.

Out of any -ism under the sun; nihilism is the simplest to undercut and discard. Hell the very word is a contradiction in terms; by it's very nature it possessing its suffix of "ism" isn't valid.
Nihilism is a pseudointellectual act of mental annihilation. It's even a part of the word: 'nihil'

Nihilism is the rejection of philosophy outright, because nihilism is the claim that no answers are possible. That precludes any philosophical development. Once you have decided that no answers are possible, philosophy has become a waste of time. But further, if no moral values are possible, neither is life; value is not arbitrary but a epistemological necessity of life. So the only consistent nihilists are those who commit suicide. Nihilism has no answer to the axiom that life is an end in itself. Nihilism cannot defend the axiom that it implicitly purports; that life doesn't mean anything. It is mental destruction for sake of destruction. Hatred of the good for being the good.
Nihilists like to prattle that it, by it's very nature is impossible to refute, but nihilsim doesn't even need to be "refuted" because all it needs is an indentification of what it actually is: an anti-concept.

>>10180064
>should matter as little to you as you do to it
This is some pseud absurdity. We cannot "matter" to a thing that is not concious. Material reality is just a simple existent.
The immensity of the universe is merely a question of scale, nothing more.
>If this existence is all we have, then we might as well do the best we can with it and accept our biological limitations.
Are you under the impression that this is what nihilism means? It is't.

>>10180633
>This is some pseud absurdity. We cannot "matter" to a thing that is not concious. Material reality is just a simple existent. The immensity of the universe is merely a question of scale, nothing more.

Yes, things without minds do not care about you because they cannot. That is the point. You do not matter to them in the sense that they do not recognize you and that you can do nothing to affect them, just as they should not matter to you because they cannot affect you either.

>Are you under the impression that this is what nihilism means? It is't.

What I am addressing here is that nihilism drives people to despair because think that nothing has any meaning, which is ultimately pointless in itself because it does not change the reality of our existence. If the best thing we can get out of our brains driven by chemical reactions are positive feelings, then we might as well roll with it. Happiness and hope is what makes life worth living.

>>10180000
Why dont you just kill yourself then?

>>10179365

Not an intellectually honest one. Once you jettison this requirement then you can parrot existentialism or whatever positive narrative the normies make of the world this decade and delude yourself that you're right.

>>10179365
growing up and having to make money to survive.
Either put in the effort, or kill yourself now.
If you become a wageslave and put in half the effort, you're still not a nihilist.
If you truly believed in nothing you wouldn't even be using money or shopping at the grocery store.

>>10180730
>What I am addressing here is that nihilism drives people to despair because think that nothing has any meaning
Correct. Even better however is recognizing that nihilism is a worthless anti-concept in the first place.

Bump

>>10180619
This doesn't exactly refute Nihilism. It actually kind of helps it.

>>10184022
How? How on Earth cana concept survive the designation of "anti-concept"? It cannot.

>>10185028
That designation does fuck all to defuse Nihilism. Doesn't matter if you call it a "anti-concept" why would that make it not true. At best it tries to show that it is not a useful philosophy to follow when it can be.

The entire work solidifies in me what I desire when I begin to overreach. These two quotes are just mission statements of a sort, but easy to affix to situations where the glut of information does you no good. The bit on the statement "everything is false," and "nothing is true" is pertinent here.

Basically, most Greeks and Romans and other cultures in the past figured this shit out as nonsensical, but contemporary industrial societies took it on as a means to explain what they knew could not be a final explanation. And now nihilism is either a pejorative or an feigned aesthetic.

Here you are, fuckwits:

"Scepticism is an ability to set out oppositions among things which appear and are thought of in any way at all, an ability by which, because of the equipollence in the opposed objects and accounts, we come first to suspension of judgement and afterwards to tranquillity."

"The causal principle of scepticism we say is the hope of becoming tranquil. Men of talent, troubled by the anomaly in things and puzzled as to which of them they should rather assent to, came to investigate what in things is true and what false, thinking that by deciding these issues they would become tranquil.
The Chief constitutive principle of scepticism is the claim that to every account an equal account is opposed; for it is from this, we think, that we come to hold no beliefs."

Yes. Bertrand Russell - A Free Man's Worship
https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/264/fmw.htm

>>10179907
>>10180730
>Nihilism itself; if everything is meaningless then why not?
>happiness and hope is what makes life worth meaning
literally sub-camus tier philosophy which simply ignores the problem
“Why should I?” can effortlessly be answered with “Why should I not?”, and “Why should I not?” can just as easily be answered with “Why should I?”, but to pick one question over the other would be to grant your argument an unwarranted favor. To attempt to solve the depressed Nihilist's dilemma by telling him he need only to rotate the question would ultimately be no better than telling him he would be happier if he’d woken up on the right side of the bed. “Just be happy” is advice of profound uselessness, and it will be met with profound indifference each time it is given.

>>10179365
If by chance there is a god, I would personally rather go through life not knowing and not hoping. If death is not deletion, I would want to prove to myself that I have the nerve to face my involuntary deletion nonetheless. And if it is not deletion, and there is a god, then this life may be my only chance to face the struggle of godlessness and see who I am in the face of such trouble. The problem is my property. That will is the only thing which I find even remotely close to a solution. This is what I believe it means to live for one’s self in the present rather than for the idea of eternity.

>>10185057
I can explain exactly how it diffuses it.
First let's take the dictionary definition of Nihilism.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nihilism
Nihilist's oft cited claim is that life has no intrinsic value. "Intrinsic" values being the criterion Nihilists are regarding things by is the thing that wrecks the whole of their shoddy structure.
There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of the good and value: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective. Only the third is true. The intrinsic theory holds that the good is inherent in certain things or actions as such, regardless of their context and consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the actors and subjects involved. It is a theory that divorces the concept of “good” from beneficiaries, and the concept of “value” from valuer and purpose, claiming that the good is good in, by, and of itself.
The subjective theory holds that the good bears no relation to the facts of reality, that it is the product of a man’s consciousness, created by his feelings, desires, “intuitions,” or whims, and that it is merely an “arbitrary postulate” or an “emotional commitment.”
The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man’s consciousness; the subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man’s consciousness, independent of reality.

The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of “things in themselves” nor of man’s emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man, and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man. Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question: Of value to whom and for what? An objective theory does not permit "context-dropping" or “concept-stealing”; it does not permit the separation of “value” from “purpose,” of the good from beneficiaries, and of man’s actions from reason.

You are merely taking Nihilism to mean that there are no intrinsic values, blanking out the realization that it isn't the intrinsic theory you should even be opperating by.

And that is a hard-refutation my friend.

>>10185228
>diffuses it
*defuses

>>10185228
This is like bad word play and doesn't refute actual Nihilism. Forget any dictionary definition, that isn't actually connected to the problem here. Also there are many 'definitions' of Nihilism. All this intrinsic, subjective, objective stuff doesn't exist. What the true nature of the world is like reality or rationality isn't real. Science tells us fuck all about 'reality'. There is no theory you should be operating by. Where did you get this stuff from?

>>10185319
>Forget any dictionary definition
And here we are. The absurdity that Nihilists always resort to once they've been btfo: Moving-the-goalposts to what constitutes Nihilsim.
>Also there are many 'definitions' of Nihilism.
And why do you think that is numbnuts?

I'll go even further by indentifying the intellectual culprit involved, quote:
>"You must attach clear, specific meanings to words, i.e. be able to identify their referents in reality. This is a precondition, without which neither critical judgement or thinking of any kind is possible. All philosophical con games count on your using words as vague approximations. You must not take a catch phrase, or any abstract statement, as if it were approximate. Take it literally. Don’t translate it, don’t glamorize it, don’t make the mistake of thinking, as many people do: “Oh, nobody could possibly mean this!” and then proceed to endow it with some whitewashed meaning of your own. Take it straight, for what it does say and mean."

So tell me what Nihilism means to you; and I'll rupture that too.

>>10179365
Dadaism

>>10185228
Intrinsic and objective are identical dummy

Goodbye argument

>>10185402
>what is an equivocation
Display in what respect they are retard.

>>10185388
There is no grand meaning to existance.
Grand is higher, permanent goal. Higher can't by definition be on this planet or accomplished by humankind, because humankind doesn't matter and can be eradicated at any moment thus the meaning isn't permanent. The meaning can't be 'created' because any meaning that is created by human consciousness doesn't matter. The meaning has to have always been.

Now don't do language play. Give me meaning.

If someone was torturing you and gave you a choice between them stopping or continuing, you're going to ask them to stop.

People want to avoid suffering
People want to be happy

There are principles inherent in the constition of a human being with its brain and body and soul which move people in the direction of happiness

Nihilism is simply being tired of whatever program you were fed as a kid, as a youth, as an adult, and coming to the faulty conclusion that "because I have never been given a good reason to live, it doesn't exist"

It's just a defense mechanism
I would never judge people for it, in fact they make lovely depressing drinking partners

But life itself is a value
If you are alive, you will towards this or that, it is impossible to be without value
The moment you were actually nihilistic, your organism would disintegrate and evaporate into oblivion

The motivation required to conceive of nihilism, to say "i agree with that" as an affirmation, to let other people know about it, these are all expenditures of vital energy which belie the so-called anti-values of itself

>>10185432
If heaven is real that is refutation to Nihilism. It's a ulimate goal for mankind to get to heaven. It's permanent. The life and 'work' you did on Earth had a reason. The work is forever and your goal in being in heaven is forever. Even this doesn't refute Nihlism fully.

>>10185455
You are so far from the mark. You will never 'get' it.

>>10185474
What is the value of 'getting it'?

>>10179365
>(((nihilism)))

>>10185432
>There is no grand meaning to existance
You are just taking "intrinsic" and replacing it with grand ie extrinsic.
Life is an end in itself. Asking for an extrinsic OR intrinsic meaning to be defined is a fallacious absurdity.
>Higher can't by definition be on this planet or accomplished by humankind, because humankind doesn't matter and can be eradicated at any moment thus the meaning isn't permanent.
>assertion
>assertion
>assertion
Why in the living fuck do you translate man's mortality and inpermanence to a direct proof of Nihilism?
>any meaning that is created by human consciousness doesn't matter
>matter
To WHAT and in what respect?
A. I do not think you were cognizant of any theory but an intrinsic one.
B. So you're sticking your fingers in your ears

>>10179365

Nihilism usually means Subjective Nihilism, the denial of Self through thinking the locus of Truth and Good is in the Phenomenal world, and the despair that comes with the inevitable realization that the Phenomenal world is illusory.

>>10185549
It's Kant's noumenal world that is a made up illusion, not the material reality.

>>10185486
The reason Nietzsche said Nihilism is a characteristic of the modern age after the decline of Christianity is because the grand goal of going to heaven was removed. Give me the meaning we can attain if the atom bombs go off and humanity is no more. What was the value of the human race.

Presumably all the people who were killed in the atom bombs go to heaven (or hell) based on the way they lived in the Christianity - Nihilism refutation.

>>10185558
The noumenal world is a world independent of the senses, and Kant said it may exist. It's unknowable and doesn't give meaning to humanity.

>>10185593
Capitalist excellence and meritocratic hero worship replace it sufficiently enough. I argue it does one better.

>>10185606
>and Kant said it may exist
Indicating it was obviously just some invention of his to validate one of his contradictory premises.

>>10185716
What do you mean?

>>10185750
Oh excuse, I meant
>grand goal of going to heaven was removed
Is what it replaces

>>10185813
*excuse me

>>10179971
>That statue always irked me; if you don't want to sculpt the taint and balls; just put a loincloth on the fucker. Don't turn one of the legs into a monstrosity

Bump

>>10185228
And how does one evaluate what is rational?

How does one find what is True? Derive the facts from reality? Specifically how do you derive what is factually true about any thing?

There is no objective/intrinsic value to anything (see >>10185402; intrinsic and objective should be one and the same) If things dont have a value or definition in and of themselves, how can we know it is what we say it is?

If we hold up a ruler and say this is a ruler, who is defining what the ruler is? The Universe? “Facts”? What are these elusive facts you rational reasonable Enlightened science-thumpers keep reaching for?

All the things in the world dont appear to be concrete to me, they are not complete. There is not a list of facts that define anything perfectly.

Even my belief in an entirely subjective experience can never be proven to me

Yet unlike you I dont rely on facts, a clinging wish for objective certainty

Einstein when approached with the contradictions of quantum mechanics said

GOD DOESNT PLAY DICE

so far physicists are in concurrence: Einstein was wrong. His tireless search for objective truth was decimated, searching for God through physics, scribbling madly til he croaked

>>10179365
why would you want to refute the truth.

This whole thread is so fucking cringey holy fucking shit. And I'm sick of seeing this same retarded question over and over again. Just fucking kill yourselves.

>>10179365
Are they actually being buried alive? It looks awfully shallow

>>10179365
It depends on what do you mean with nihilism.
If you mean "life has no intrinsic meaning" (as in "no teleological nature") I can't really disagree. You may want to look into religion or similar stuff.
If you mean "there's no objective morality" then I suggest you read my boi Kant as well as moral philosophy.
If you're a moron whose only source of philosophy is the internet and who conflates the two like this mongoloid >>10179956 here then kys desu

>>10187017
>And how does one evaluate what is rational? How does one find what is True? Derive the facts from reality? Specifically how do you derive what is factually true about any thing?
Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. Reason integrates man’s perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man’s knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic, and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.
A quote:
>"Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two, existence and consciousnes, are axioms you cannot escape. These two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it. To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was the greatest of your philosophers [he means Aristotle], has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification."

>Yet unlike you I dont rely on facts
AHAHAHAHA did you really just post this. You nihilists are a riot.

Respond to >>10185420 and >>10185486 if you care to.

Nietzsche was a nihilist

Epicureanism.
/thread

>>10180007
>certain things are objective (maths for example)
oh boy....

>>10179365
Meaning cannot be inherent because it is an emergent property constructed on top of intelligence. The search for meaning on such an atomic level is pointless but this isn't grounds for dismissal of meaning in general which is a thing that effects the decision process of intelligent agents (like animals or computers). You wouldn't look for wetness in individual hydrogen and oxygen molecules and you don't dismiss the property of wetness because it doesn't exist on lower levels.

>>10187075
I don't fully understand the categorical imperative is referring to when that argument is made though l. Maybe I'm a brainlet but surely all decisions made by humans are explainable either through a cognitive sense or through some sort of brain chemistry explanation.

>>10187274
Camus's interpretation of Nietzsche in his "The Rebel". One of better things we have against Nihilism, still not good enough.

salvation waits, anon

>>10187424
This. Nihilism is so simple to btfo.

>>10179365
Let's first define meaning. Meaning is what something was constructed to do. The meaning of a hammer is to hammer, as that is the purpose of it's construction. We are made of multiple diffrent kinds of "hammers". All with their different purposes. The heart exist to beat, the lungs exist to breath. Going on a deeper level, mithoconndrias exist to power the cell, the DNA exists to instruct the creation of beings. Humans are just collectives of "hammers", working together so they can fulfill their meaning.
The more complex a being is, the more needs it have to fulfill. As we're social animals, we need to fulfill our social needs.
Check out the related picture. That's pretty much all the meanings of your life.

>>10188598
You fell into the trap. This is not the meaning anyone here is talking about. The meaning can't be 'created' like a hammer. You are at the early stages of the problem. This is the answer of someone who hasn't look into it.
Read this. >>10185593
If you destroy a hammer it's purpose vanishes same with a human. Meaning can't stop. There always has to be meaning.

>>10179971
senpai his knob looks like a doplhin blud

>>10188650
Apparently it's a cloud or some shit. The designer was a fucking moron. It makes his leg look fucked up. All because he didn't want to sculpt the taint and balls. Just put a loincloth cloth on him or something.

>>10188635

So becuase everything could end that means everything doesn't matter? I'd disagree. Your looking at time linearly and makes the presumption that meaning most be forever to be important.
Everything that has happened exist in it's own timeframe, meaning that a meaning full action will last "forever" in spacetime. Just becuase you can't see the past doesn't mean that it isn't there.
Also, if you fulfilled your meanings for 2 years before the end of the world, you have still lived a better and more meaningfull existence compared to someone who didn't.

>>10188660
Forgot pic

>>10188660
indeed what a stupid piece of "modernity" sculpture

>>10188635
Also, meaning is forever as everything is constructed by other things for the purpose of achieving something else. If a stone is dropped it falls. Falling is the meaning of a system constituting of the stone and gravity. So you can't really destroy meaning as it's a feature of existence.

>>10179365
Nihilism has really bad arguments in its favor so I don't see why we should begin by refuting it.

>>10188738
Reminder that all it needs as an identification of the anti-concept it is. Refutation is possible but secondary and unnecessary.

>>10188741
>Reminder that all it needs as an identification of the anti-concept it is.
What?

>>10188697
>if you fulfilled your meanings for 2 years before the end of the world
No. And the 'meanings' didn't matter. They don't exist anymore if the world ended.
>>10188715
That kind of meaning doesn't matter. Nihilism is about existance of primarily humans. If a meteor hits the Earth and humans are eradicated there still has to be a goal.

>>10179956
Imagine being this much of a brainlet IMAGINE.

You don't have to refute anything because philosophy is just a linguistic construct and doesn't actually exist.

We are the Cosmos experiencing itself or something who cares.

>>10188598
What a moronic post. A hammer is a tool. It is built by someone with a specific purpose in mind. You can't say the same about humans. Who built us? For what purpose? What is the teolological nature of life? Why do we live and die? You can't simply reduce "life" to its organic functions, it doesn't explain shit.

>>10188986
Except it literally does.

>>10189138
>The meaning of life, the reason of our existence, is defecating and feeling things
Almonds = activated

>>10189384
Lel

>>10188598
pfft

>>10187649
read up on arguments against physicalism. you've been brainwashed by internet atheists into thinking mental events and consciousness have to come from material things

>>10191157
Thinking is just the product of chemical reactions within the brain. Until you can prove there is something else that drives human thought then nihilism stands.

Which came first nihilism or depression? Did you know if you work on curing your depression often times you'll stop being a nihilist? Funny thing.

>>10191559
I don't see how that would make nihilism still stand. Would you suddenly have more meaning if your emotions were caused by the holy ghost?You'd still enjoy the same shit and put vlaue on the same shit.

>>10188778
you know if this was the first or second response I might've laughed but seeing it after 3 legit attempts of discussion I think I hate you people

>>10191607
If heaven or hell was real your whole life, your actions would have a permanent goal. After you die you go permanently to heaven, this can't be taken away from you. This is why we are in a Nihilistic era after the decline of Christianity. Christianity was a cure for Nihilism. There is a goal for life = Heaven. And your actions on Earth matter because that determines if you get to heaven.

>>10191642
>being a cool dude is only a nice goal if you get cake at the end
jeez

>>10191646
This. religion not being as important leads initially to nihilism but you'd have to be a fucking retard to not realize philosophy from then on points towards meaning for the individual instead of continuing in nihilism.

>>10191646
Morality can exist within society, there are consequences built into it that guide us on proper behaviour. What I'm saying is that there is nothing objective that causes morality within humans. That's not to say subjective reality is any less important to the lives of many, but there is no provable higher guidance to human behaviour.

>>10191711
>there is nothing objective that causes morality within human
That's where you're wrong bucko.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html

>>10191716
Your arguments rests on the idea that humans are unique in their nature. Another species could have or might evolve to the same point. Morality in humans refers generally to the golden rule and the golden rule is formed from empathy. Empathy is an evolutionary trait that allows us to preserve the human race as a species. This happened by chance due to mutations in the genus. All of this shit you posted is twisting words to avoid the fact that there is no fucking objective morality.

>>10179365
It requires value to develop and subscribe to.

>>10191646
>>10191651
Stupid. Use your brains.

>>10179365
Yeah, read Nietzsche's Will to Power. To think the world is meaningless is an indication of an unclean mind, not one tuned to the truth.

>>10192278
Too bad that doesn't make nihilism magically disappear.
>b-but ur mind is unclean

>>10179365
Yes, literally every alternative system of philosophy, stoicism, platonism, aristotelian philosophy, thomism, kantian ethics, hegelian ethics, I'd go as far as including utilitiariansm as well purely because nihilism is so shitty as a system that even Mill offers a better alternative.

>>10192330
Nihilism is not a revelation based on truth but a symptom of sickness, a moral lens. It does disappear, just as sickness does when you use a proper antidote combined with an active will to live. There is nothing truthful about nihilistic tendencies.

>>10179923

Holy fucking shit. Why has no one posted fucking /thread yet?! This literally explains it perfectly.

Also OP read Nietzsche.

>>10180619
>So the only consistent nihilists are those who commit suicide.

Or murderers.

>>10179365
Scepticism/quietism.

Nihilism is just as unwarranted as any other faith based stance.

>>10185078

My nigga. Posting Pyrrho gives you mad cred in my book.

Dude got called out by Alexander, and after Alexander died founded skepticism because "If a God can die what does that really mean about Gods."

>>10185455
>If someone was torturing you and gave you a choice between them stopping or continuing, you're going to ask them to stop.

Masochists exists homie.

>t. Masochist
Femdom is hot

>>10192576
>girl pinching your butt cheeks and calling you naughty is the same as being skinned alive

Masochists are bullshit LARPers for the most part.

>>10192523
Anyone can just assert something, anon.

>>10192586
It's far more than just asserted in Nietzsche's Will to Power.

>>10187741

How is this a refutation against the pseudo-Pole? If anything he is praising him?

>>10188705

>This is what Randian's actually make.

>>10191646

>undervalued post

>>10187424
What does this mean? That only God knows what meaning is because we are beneath it?

>>10192593
It's asserted convincingly?

>>10179923
>If meaning is reliant on the idea of eternity it would simply be false to assume that the spirit is not eternal.
Isn't the whole problem that nihilists believe that only the eternal can provide meaning but they don't believe in the spirit?

>>10193319
I wouldn't say the whole problem, but as far as that statement goes you've got it

>>10192624
Atlas wasn't invented by Objectivists stupid.

>>10193261
Not necessarily. This works with theistic and materialist conceptions of reality because God is an intelligent agent (if you choose to believe God exists). Meaning can only exist atop intelligence because only intelligence can recognize the "why", purpose, or effect of a cause. Their is no meaning in a universe with no intelligence, it is just causality, cause and effect. Meaning is a framework to understand the purpose, end of causal behavior. Nihilism devalues meaning because it has constituent components which don't have meaning. Apply that logic to any other property and it should be clear why that notion is ridiculous.

>>10191730
>Another species could have or might evolve to the same point.
And? I'm sure that could have. Did they?
Protip: this notion only applies to the monkies in the newer Planet of the Apes movies because the whole plot of the movie is apes being granted the cognitive distinction only man possesses: the conceptual faculty.
As advance as their faculty is when compared to other animals : monkies are STILL percept-only beings. They cannot be taught to speak or write no matter how hard they are trained for a reason.

>>10192619

First original sin of all religions/philosophical moral systems is rejection of reality. All systems are introducing abstract idea(God, Kantian good will), and abstract "final" reality (heaven, brotherhood of all mankind). Because of that they will earlier or later rot when idea will become "too unreal"

Nihilism eliminated ideas but carried over rejection of world and resentment.
Tragedy of Nihilism is that it doesn't give himself chance of redemption; it rejects the world but it is aware that it is impossible to build any moral system.

Nietzsche's answer to Nihilism is radical acceptation of world (amor fati) with all it's consequences. It's not even stoical "bad things happen, carry on", it's embracing worst and best aspect of reality. Buddhism (I'm not expert on that) is in some way similar, only it turns its back on world. Nietzsche "falls into" or better say "throws himself into" the world.

>>10179365
All human knowledge and thought derives from unjustifiable axioms, might as well believe in arbitrary things.

>>10179956
>Or, that life is completely "subjective."
Absolutely not.

>>10195058
Nietzsche doesn't say Nihilism doesn't exist though, he just says you have to overcome it. Also you can't live for happiness even though Nihilism is the condition of the modern world, that would be 'ignoble'. Why do you have to become Napoleon?

Determinism

>>10195064
>unjustifiable axioms
What about the 3 most fundamental?
Primacy of Existence, Conciousness Concomitance, and the Law of Identity?

Pessimism.

>>10196864
>tomato tomahto

>>10196850
Look up Godel's incompleteness theorem. As far as we know you can't use a system to justify itself (ex: can't use logic to "prove" validity of the system of logic).

>>10198067
Assuming that by "validity" you mean "consistency", Godel's incompleteness theorems only apply to formal systems that are capable of fully handling (i.e., formalizing) basic arithmetic. A weaker system like first-order logic or Presburger arithmetic, for example, can prove its own consistency. And applying the incompleteness theorems to non-formal system is nonsensical. In general, try not to express opinions on matters you don't understand.

>>10179365
Unironically, Heidegger is the only viable alternative to nihilism that's available without turning to religion or speculative mysticism.

Heidegger's gist: the significance of the world and the things therein is always already revealed to us, and there is no suprahuman standpoint available from which we could peel off the meaning from the world or the things therein and declare it to be all too human.

>>10198098
Fuck Heidegger. He didn't understand Nietzsche.

>>10185078
underrated post

>>10179365
Read some Descartes.

>>10197922
Nihilism and pessimism are completely different thing, stop getting your philosophical education from burger tv tropes.

>>10198187
You're right about that, but he's still the only viable alternative to nihilism.

>>10197922
>the world has no objective value = the world is objectively bad

nihilism in the teenage angst sense is really nothing more than

'life is meaningfully bad'
'life is not up to my standard'
'life is not good enough'

it's not nihilism - the world has meaning, it's just bad

>>10179365
Have sex, love a living creature. Learn to skill.

In other words, find meaning in your life, and you will have refuted nihilism.

>>10198251
Hasnt descartes philosophy been shitted on by countless philosophers?

>>10198455
He is too simple. He barely even reaches the problem of nihilism with his narrow-minded draw to "metaphysics." Nietzsche is the alternative, though he's hard to grasp and he left his work a bit unfinished.

Opening note to Will to Power:

>He that speaks here, conversely, has done nothing so far but reflect: a philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come; as the first perfect nihilist of Europe who, however, has even now lived through the whole of nihilism, to the end, leaving it behind, outside himself.

>>10200114
Nietzsche was too insightful for this world. Just look here, opening notes in WP:

>What does nihilism mean? That the highest values devaluate themselves. The aim is lacking; "why?" finds no answer.

>Nihilism stands at the door: whence comes this uncanniest of all guests? Point of departure: it is an error to consider "social distress" or "physiological degeneration" or, worse, corruption, as the cause of nihilism. Ours is the most decent and compassionate age. Distress, whether of the soul, body, or intellect, cannot of itself give birth to nihilism (i.e., the radical repudiation of value, meaning, and desirability). Such distress always permits a variety of interpretations. Rather: it is in one particular interpretation, the Christian-moral one, that nihilism is rooted.

Who would think this? No one. Even this board constantly attributes those things to nihilism that he's saying aren't actually responsible for it. Those things, in time, came about because of the Christian-moral revaluation of all values that has been in the process of developing for thousands of years, that we have lost the ability to easily trace. Nietzsche's morality is completely anti-Christian; his solution to nihilism then is to adopt a new morality that affirms life rather than negates it, because he identifies (rightly so) the cause of nihilism to be completely based on Christian morality.

>The end of the moral interpretation of the world, which no longer has any sanction after it has tried to escape into some beyond, leads to nihilism.

>Radical nihilism is the conviction of an absolute untenability of existence when it comes to the highest values one recognizes; plus the realization that we lack the least right to posit a beyond or an in-itself of things that might be "divine" or morality incarnate. This realization is a consequence of the cultivation of "truthfulness" — thus itself a consequence of the faith in morality.

>The nihilistic consequences of contemporary natural science (together with its attempt to escape into some beyond). The industry of its pursuit eventually leads to self-disintegration, opposition, an anti-scientific mentality. Since Copernicus man has been rolling from the center toward X.

Nietzsche identified the natural sciences and the Enlightenment as the byproduct of Christian morality. Christian morality trained the world to measure things within a single structure of interpretation which eventually created the calculating scientific mind we have now. However, it implodes in on itself; it gave rise to the binary notion of truth vs. the false, which itself becomes life-denying when brought to its philosophical conclusion.

The solution to nihilism is in Nietzsche's crafted morality. And that is the only solution.

>>10200114
>>10200158
A bit more on the process of Christianity's life-negating morality, which has dominated and shaped our minds for millennia, and how it worms through our subconscious without our awareness, developing nihilism at the end:

>Nihilism as a psychological state will have to be reached, first, when we have sought a "meaning" in all events that is not there: so the seeker eventually becomes discouraged. Nihilism, then, is the recognition of the long waste of strength, the agony of the "in vain," insecurity, the lack of any opportunity to recover and to regain composure—being ashamed in front of oneself, as if one had deceived oneself all too long. —This meaning could have been: the "fulfillment" of some highest ethical canon in all events, the moral world order; or the growth of love and harmony in the intercourse of beings; or the gradual approximation of a state of universal happiness; or even the development toward a state of universal annihilation—any goal at least constitutes some meaning. What all these notions have in common is that something is to be achieved through the process — and now one realizes that becoming aims at nothing and achieves nothing.— Thus, disappointment regarding an alleged aim of becoming as a cause of nihilism: whether regarding a specific aim or, universalized, the realization that all previous hypotheses about aims that concern the whole "evolution" are inadequate (man no longer the collaborator, let alone the center, of becoming).

>Nihilism as a psychological state is reached, secondly, when one has posited a totality, a systematization, indeed any organization in all events, and underneath all events, and a soul that longs to admire and revere has wallowed in the idea of some supreme form of domination and administration (—if the soul be that of a logician, complete consistency and real dialectic are quite sufficient to reconcile it to everything). Some sort of unity, some form of "monism": this faith suffices to give man a deep feeling of standing in the context of, and being dependent on, some whole that is infinitely superior to him, and he sees himself as a mode of the deity. —"The well-being of the universal demands the devotion of the individual"—but behold, there is no such universal! At bottom, man has lost the faith in his own value when no infinitely valuable whole works through him; i.e., he conceived such a whole in order to be able to believe in his own value.

Rest in the next post.

Seek the kingdom of God, everything else is vanity, vanity, vanity.

>>10200114
>>10200158
>>10200193
>Nihilism as psychological state has yet a third and last form. [...] As soon as man finds out how that world is fabricated solely from psychological needs, and how he has absolutely no right to it, the last form of nihilism comes into being: it includes disbelief in any metaphysical world and forbids itself any belief in a true world. Having reached this standpoint, one grants the reality of becoming as the only reality, forbids oneself every kind of clandestine access to afterworlds and false divinities—but cannot endure this world though one does not want to deny it. What has happened, at bottom? The feeling of valuelessness was reached with the realization that the overall character of existence may not be interpreted by means of the concept of "aim," the concept of "unity," or the concept of "truth." Existence has no goal or end; any comprehensive unity in the plurality of events is lacking: the character of existence is not "true," is false. One simply lacks any reason for convincing oneself that there is a true world. Briefly: the categories "aim," "unity," "being" which we used to project some value into the world—we pull out again; so the world looks valueless.

And then, Nietzsche's conclusion on the matter of nihilism, which I have already stated:

>Suppose we realize how the world may no longer be interpreted in terms of these three categories, and that the world begins to become valueless for us after this insight: then we have to ask about the sources of our faith in these three categories. Let us try if it is not possible to give up our faith in them. Once we have devaluated these three categories, the demonstration that they cannot be applied to the universe is no longer any reason for devaluating the universe. Conclusion: The faith in the categories of REASON is the cause of nihilism. We have measured the value of the world according to categories that refer to a purely fictitious world.

>Final conclusion: All the values by means of which we have tried so far to render the world estimable for ourselves and which then proved inapplicable and therefore devaluated the world—all these values are, psychologically considered, the results of certain perspectives of utility, designed to maintain and increase human constructs of domination—and they have been falsely projected into the essence of things. What we find here is still the hyperbolic naivete of man: positing himself as the meaning and measure of the value of things.

Nietzsche is the champion of the subject and overcoming of nihilism. He went way past the entire dilemma while ALSO being the first person to identify all of its nuanced behaviors and mechanisms at such a deeply philosophical level. He is the ONLY person you need to read and listen to on this. And he says a whole lot more about it in WP.

Bump

>>10179365
This is utter nonsense, oppie. Nihilism doesn't need to be refuted because it's not a philosophy. It's just a psychological state.

>>10200209
stop promoting the blue pill and begone !

>>10201806
this why can't he become a redpilled atheist like me ?!?!?!?!

>>10198090
You were talking about axioms so you were attempting to ground something in logic. If you're doing that its not a non-formal system.

>>10200158
>>10200193
>>10200212
tips fedora

>>10202825
Got em