/lit/ - Literature

>>14075923
>nihilism
Gross. Who the fuck needs nihilism? Nihilism is utterly retarded.

>>14075935
>Who the fuck needs nihilism?
Nihilism can be half full, or half empty. It can be a good cope to rationalize anxiety and existential dread away. It can be also poison to rationalize away any semblance of ambition and self-respect.

>>14075953
>It can be a good cope to rationalize anxiety and existential dread away.
What? No it isn't. It's only this:
>It can be also poison to rationalize away any semblance of ambition and self-respect.
Nihilism is fundamentally retarded and deserves to be mocked, belittled, and ridiculed.

>>14075984
I have mostly existential nihilism in mind.
>It can be a good cope to rationalize anxiety and existential dread away.
The way this works: "Nothing matters in grand scheme of things, so why should I care about this concrete anxiety X".
Whereas the bad result is simple lazy "why bother". When it comes to abusing nihilism, it's always about the confirmation bias you set out with. Nihilism in no way or shape *tells* you what to do, it only provides an extreme end of skepticism versus most normative values/statements.

There are of course outright retarded forms of nihilism, chiefly the metaphysical one of "nothing is real". Which is extremely at odds with common sense (if you're not real, how can you even think that nothing else is real...), and often a sign of extreme depersonalized schizophrenia.

>>14076022
Dude, I'm not trying to be a dick here but Existential Nihilism is literally nothing but existentialism and that's why it's the most well known and most discussed. And further, existentialism is nothing more than pseuds discovering religion but refusing to "follow" a religion because they can't face their own reality square in the face when they realize they've been following religion from the beginning but thought they were going down some super cool intellectual path that wasn't religion. They're so stubborn, in fact, they began making up their own definition of it and desperately tried to find historical examples of it to justify it and now they call it existentialism. It deserves to be laughed at.

>>14076101
The distinction between the two is that nihilism positions itself as rational systematic materialist morality, whereas existentialism is mainly concerned with immediate, largely spiritual feelings of a man.

I'd say its largely the sides of same coin: one from the outside, one from the inside, one for stemfags, another for artfags. Nietzsche famously connected the two, by first taking the existentialist perspective and relating it to nihilist morality. I deem the stemfag version a bit more superior because it has more of "big picture" potential, thus can be abused for further reaching rationalizations.

>>14076124
but what you're arguing is agreeing with me. if it's two sides of the same coin it's still the same coin, and that's what i'm referring to, the coin. i'm saying there is no one side that arguably more superior as if you flipped the coin a billion times it would likely come up 50/50 on either side. and it would still be the same coin. which leads me further to say, again, the coin is worthless. like communist money. which it's not lost on me that some would argue it was the introduction of nihilism that lead to the russian cultural descent into its destruction in the form of bolshevism, which disguised itself as communism.

>>14076148
Don't play fast and loose with sides of a coin. This is essentially about subjectivism vs objectivism and deduction vs induction. Sure there's the same thing at the center, however the cognitive style for each is very different. One is personalized and empathetic, the second is disassociated and generalizing. As a materialist, I find only limited use personally to ponder my feelings of angst and the absurd - those are just my subjective feelings, interpretation of global events. Feelings don't help me to relate to the world and better yet, manufacture delusions to cope. For that one has to defer to the materialist side of things. "world is unjust because most outcomes are random" is something you arrive at with reasoned nihilism as a stemfag, not mere angst and absurdity of it. Artfag typically uses opposite cognitive style, and finds the stemfag perspective robotic or outright incomprehensible.

>>14076164
well no no no. now hold on. now you're getting into a different argument altogether. you can't just throw in an argument about subjectivism vs objectivism with a discussion about existentialism vs. nihilism. hell you can't even throw in deduction vs induction when you're the only one who believes either of these to relate to your argument about existentialism for nihilism. i disagree with that argument, and i disagree with your categorization of either of the other as the same thing entirely. and i know you desperately want to think your wannabe poetic intellecualism posts are winning me over, i assure, you they are making you look more and more foolish as you masturbate over the keyboard.

>>14076188
>and i know you desperately want to think your wannabe poetic intellecualism
That's what this board is for after all. I suppose I need to be more clear and didactic then:

subjectivism: sartre (who is implicitly subjectivist and elaborated multiple times why everything ultimately relates to ego, outside world abstracts on side tracks)
objectivism: rand (consider only statements for which no good subjective positions exist, ie consensus and/or empiricism).
deduction: relates to objectivism, start with some (purported universal) truths, deduce from that. "It is that way because I followed external observation and a recipe, regardless of how I feel about it".
induction: relates to subjectivism, start with the local premise (your feelings) partially confirming the outcome you arrive at. "It is that way because I feel that way".

>>14075935
>>14075984
pleb

>>14076188
> and i disagree with your categorization of either of the other as the same thing entirely
I should also clarify: In case of existentialism vs nihilism, my argument is that they talk about same thing ultimately, but in opposing styles of reasoning. Then I enumerated the styles: existentialism is subjectivist, implicitly most of the time, whereas nihilism is overwhelmingly objectivist that is, it purports universal truths, and you're just a puppet flailing. As for induction/deduction, it's just cognitive style of reasoning for the former and latter. If you imply you use deduction for sartre style of existentialism, that would imply feelings and ego are not self-reaffirming and theres universal abstract, which is contrary to the whole point.

>>14076222
>pleb
surprise, surprise. another neet on /lit/ thinks nihilism is "cool". i'm shocked.