/lit/ - Literature

/thread

>>2772237

>>2772247
Who gives a fuck about sanity.

well, i believe life is random and there's no special purpose to anything. i don't know if that makes me a nihilist though, since life is also pretty awesome and there's shitloads of things to do and enjoy

>>2772247
the fuck does sanity means? physical? mental? social?...

I can't point to which things I disagree, but even so I don't consider myself a nihilist in any way as I think that way of seeing life is somehow incomplete.

It's as if someone lived too much time under the wings of common sense, misconceptions and so on and that then, it clicked in their head a very different way of seeing things. I think the problem here is that nihilism ends up as "seeing through" from the perspective of someone who didn't "walk through".

"Meaning", "denial", "existence", "purpose". I think it misses on the semiotics of those terms. It is one or the other, I mean, a stiff vision of it.

>>2772255
The Government

I know there is no fundamental basis for our ideas. But it shouldn't stop us from coming up with ideas.
It's like there's no irrefutable form of justification but everything is starting from that groundless point so it's like instead of starting our argument from the first step, we are all standing on the second step. We can still progress upwards from there.

I reject and accept ideas in accordance with my comfort. I don't see why nihilism necessitates rejection over acceptance. It doesn't.

Number 3 is just a rephrasing of the other 2

>>2772237
Of course. Anyone who isn't simply does not have a strong enough grasp on philosophy.

Is Stirner a nihilist?

Define knowledge and truth.

>>2772320
no, they're ineffable constructs.

>>2772325
You're wrong. You must meditate on the matter

'nihilism' is for angsty OMG SO EDGY teenagers who think philosophy is all about 'the meaning of life, maaaaaan.'

you can reject representational or objective truth, but there's more productive things to do than just say it doesn't exist - learn to hermeneutics

>>2772339
>>>/b/

No, I am not.

>>2772349
commit suicide

>>2772349
sure there are other questions but whether or not we should kill ourselves is the only important one

>>2772349
Stop calling philosophical ideas EDGY when you don't understand it.

>>2772354

spare me the butthurt. why even discuss nihilism - what's to be gained by it, at all? it's a completely useless idea, unless, as mentioned above, you want everyone to know how dark and interesting you are

>>2772358

camus = babbysfirstphilosophy.jpg

bumping

from http://socialrupture.tumblr.com/

"Politics is not a Banana" anyone?

>>2772368
people encounter dawkin's scientism, marxian economics, rand's objectivism and nietzschean concepts well before they discover camus. and even then you're more likely to read sartre and kierkegaard's existentialism before being introduced to camus' novels and essays.

Nihilism is the only natural and true state of existence. All is relative, all morals, emotions, boundaries, laws, thoughts, everything is relative.

Remove the human race from existence and none of what we hold dear can be found. Remove the planet from existence and all of our "facts" and "truths" are gone.

Everything past nihilism is an acceptance of this nothingness and the desire to create something which the individual feels the need to create.

Strictly speaking, the Corner doesn't exist.

1a) No
1b) No
2) Sure

The scope of existence is beyond human understanding and when we think we have understood we have not because of constant chaos. Everything keeps on moving and going. There is never a stop because time does not stop. There was nothing because there was nothing to be. Look inward with blind eyes. Just be.

>>2772412

this is why nihilism is useless and not worth discussing. so you're correct - if the planet disappeared, literature, philosophy, our morals and ideas would all disappear. so what. there's no new concepts, inventions, ideas, or really anything at all that can come from nihilism in its pure form, except the smugness of being 'right' which comes from diluting the debate and expanding the grounds of debate so far out that they become useless.

if you want to argue that human thinking and ideas are contingent only on the presence of humans and are therefore not objective, go ahead - technically you're correct. however, it's a sterile point in itself - it can be useful if we turn towards understanding why and how ideas form in their contingent human-based forms, but nihilism in itself just says "NOPE NOT REAL LUL"

>>2772507
I subscribe to a different brand of nihilism.
The way you're describing it can be summed up as "Why bother?". I prefer "Why not?"

>not defining things
>playing with words
>2012

when do you ever learn guise

Not sure if I'm a nihilist, but here's how I see things at the time:

a) Through science we can stablish knowledge that leads us closer and closer to truths. The main points against it, however, are:

- Everything we experience as reality is not reality itself, but the way our brain interprets the signals it gets from the senses. A slight chemical malfunction can completely alter the way you perceive things (see: schizophrenia); this may render our knowledge of said truths somewhat subjective in a grand scope.

- The ultimate truths have little to no relevance... for example, string theory. As far as I know, it hasn't been proven. But if matter does indeed turn out to be tiny strings of energy vibrating very slowly... well, it has little effect on our reality. The sun still rises, we're still bundles of flesh and bone, the universe remains the same. All that chances is our understanding of it.

So, yeah. I'm sure these two notions can be refuted.

b) I'm not an adherent to any religion, and I lean closer to agnosticism than atheism. But I don't think morals are somethig we should reject. I think the very basis of morals come from physical pain. At a young age we realize some things hurt and we tend to avoid them for us and for everyone else. You can suscribe to any religion or philosophy, but I think morals essentially come to that simple "avoid pain" notion, which I think is something everyone can agree is a good thing.

>>2772717

b2) This one I agree with. Life is a fluke. Not an error or a mistake, though, as that would imply a design or purpose that went wrong somewhere. We happened because, in this little spot of an incomprehensibly vast universe, the right circumstances happened: the sun at the right distance, the earth the right size, the right chemicals colliding and bonding... it seems like a huge deal that all these things would come together like that, but it isn't.

There's countless other galaxies with conditions as impossible and unlikely to ours. The odds of our planet coming together and harboring life are no bigger or smaller or any more significant than any of the countless alternatives. They're all unique and almost impossible against such odds.

So, we just happened like that. There is no purpose or inherent meaning to existence. The universe is indifferent.

But hey, we're alive. We see and hear and feel and taste and emote and all those things. We might as well try to enjoy our little time here.

>>2772717
>>2772717
I will question your system presented in b), exclusively.


>b) I'm not an adherent to any religion, and I lean closer to agnosticism than atheism. But I don't think morals are somethig we should reject. I think the very basis of morals come from physical pain. At a young age we realize some things hurt and we tend to avoid them for us and for everyone else. You can suscribe to any religion or philosophy, but I think morals essentially come to that simple "avoid pain" notion, which I think is something everyone can agree is a good thing.

How do you explain moral systems that actually elevate pain to a higher status? How do you explain cultures that actually deify human sacrifice (both ritual and symbolic)?

>>2772688
this whole topic has the definition spelled out in the pic at the top.
you're asking us to define the definition which is silly as we would have to define that definition and never get anywhere with discussion

>>2772732

I was trying to present my view on a very broad and generic scope, and probably isn't meant to be an all-encompassing statement.

That said, would you mind providing some examples? Otherwise I'll end up talking about people who seem to enjoy pain, like fans of s&m and the like, in equally generic terms. Would be better if I have something specific to which I can try to provide a specific answer.

As for sacrifice... maybe in some cultures it happened as a logical error of sorts? For example, there's a relentless rain and two people are fighting; one kills the other, and soon the rain passes. In their magical thinking sort of way, they see a co-relation between the two events and extrapolate it from there?

/lit/ is too opinionated to fully understand Nihilism

/discussion

Second definition only.

>>2772751
I am now deeply unsure about your use of the word "morals".

>>2772730
Sounds like existentialism

>>2772247
Good thing I chose to hover in the middle.

nietzsche said nihilism is dumb and bad as a permanent way of living

ok men so i am not nilhist k

Nihilism = emptiness of possibilities

Learn you historical facts, ffs

Christ, you're all so fucking uneducated. Moot, delete /lit/.

>>2773179
>complain about undereducation
>propose to delete the smartest board

>40 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

and yet, once again, more than half of you have no fucking clue what Nihilism actually is and what it means for philosophical discourse. Why can't /lit/ into philosophy? WHY WHY WHY

>>2773188
>

>>2773198
>spoiler tags
>inability to use language

>>2773195
Why don't you tell us?

I don't care.

>>2773535
This.

Enlighten me.

Nihilism is the spaces between the words, the darkness of my heart, the paint on my lips, and my pitch-black bob haircut i got for 15.95 at greatclips. Ugh everything fucking sucks.

>>2774008
hehe

>>2773535
I think a nihilist would never post in a thread about nihilism, they are too busy comtemplating suicide.

>>2772647
this

>>2772507
describes the 'edgy' 'angsty' 'teen' stuff that this asshole >>2772349
thinks are true

>>2774015
I think you're retarded

>>2774008
lel

>>2774015
le troll xD

>>2772717
>string theory is bullshit
>not knowing quantum mechanics is going to power our next-gen computers someday
>even looking at an atom funny, according to quantum mechanics, can change what state matter is in

Yes, we're not going to get green space babes anytime soon, but for the next century some of this "navel-gazing" is going to be mandatory for science.

Nihilism is for those who spite life instead of finding truth and meaning within their own existence.

Nihilism is for the timid.

>>2774538
>keep fucking up everybody's life you know
>normalfags won't touch you with a ten-foot pole
>proclaim yourself that you are the devil
>instant confidence boost

I've never described myself as a nihilist before.
I don't particularly believe that life holds any meaning.
I don't believe in abstract concepts, either.
I've always held that logic should control one's decision making, not emotions.
I'll most likely eventually kill myself.
I have no reason not to right now, aside from simple indifference.
I feel that life, currently, has more to offer to me than death.
Until that time changes, I'll remain living.

>>2774538
if you make up your own values you aren't overcoming Nihilism

in fact, you're only reenforcing Nihilism by proving that there aren't inherent values in the world

but keep on looking down at things you don't understand.

>>2774568

>if you make up your own values you aren't overcoming Nihilism

I'm not "overcoming" nihilism because it wasn't something I'd ever previously subscribed to.

But keep on misappropriating words you don't understand.

I've read a lot of books and heard a lot of people give their two cents on the nature of existence. No explanation of anything (excluding the physical behavior of matter) ever feels complete. None of my own ruminations can ever be verified. Even now, as I am writing this, it feels like I'm just talking out of my ass. One of the few things of which I am certain is that my perception is flawed and my cognition is flawed, so therefore my understanding of the universe must also be flawed.

>>2774554
That just about sums me up.

>>2774599
I guess this is the part where we would cut the palms of our hands with a ceremonial blade and hold them together over a candle or something.

It's funny how /lit/ "philosophers" treat nihilists with the same scorn with which atheists and christfags treat agnostics.

Honestly, even though I know there's problems with believing that humans basically direct representational knowledge of the world, I still live my daily life thinking that.

Though I know of other ways of conceptualizing truth, I don't think I really understand how they "work" or how they guide/ don't guide us is saying what is true or not. I'm a realist at heart.

I just can't into historically relative truth.

How is logic better than emotion? If you use logic to answer, you'll give a one-sided answer which good logic would refuse for being suspicious. If you use your emotion to answer you won't need rational arguments to satisfy yourself and no further knowledge on how you answered will be needed. The thing is, we work the way we see it is working. Believing, feeling, thinking, saying, doing, knowing, using reason, emotion or pure nonsense, they are all the same in essence, even though we put some semiotic fences between them.

>>2774641
Emotion clouds judgment. If you become too emotionally invested in an argument or other such thing, your logic suffers.
An emotional person can't see both sides of an argument, and often find it very difficult to admit that they're wrong.

>>2774647
And if there is something which is completely unacceptable for a logical person it is to be wrong. You see what I mean?

I think there is nothing more emotional than using logic and nothing more logical than counting with our own emotions and instincts. It's simultaneous, complementary, impossible to divide, though we pretend we can.

I do not deny that there is a meaning nor do I deny the lack of one. Instead I deny the notion of meaning e.g. deny the need for anything to have a meaning. Am I still nihilist?

>>2774647
Why place value in logic?

>>2774659
I count myself as a logical person. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, or recognizing when that happens.
I suppose my idea of "using only logic to form decisions," is most likely a way of justifying the way that I do that.
I'm not going to get in to it, simply because it doesn't seem important right now and I'd most likely just be called an attention-whore, but I have a "condition" that severely, severely blunts my emotions. Almost to the point of not having any.
And so, as a result, logic is my only tool.

I suppose that, for the average person, a combination of logic and emotion would be ideal for an argument or other such thing.

They're fuckin' nihilists, Dude.

>>2772247
>sanity
Buddhists believe in mysticism which is seemingly soft-"insane" by our rational mind. Though their system seems to be happy/intelligent.

>>2774668
literally died of laughter reading that. brilliant.

>thinking nihilism isn't a dead end and not wrong
uneducated bumptious fools

>have precognitive dreams
>also paranormal experiences
empiricism is outdated

>>2774816
>doesn't understand anything at all in any way

gj

I don't like nihilism as a lot of nihilists sound like sociopaths.
and i hunt sociopaths

>>2774828
You are weak.

>>2774831
>/lit/ in charge of insults

>>2774840
Your heart will explode.

>>2774842
that'd be hilarious

Sounds stupid/egotistical belief to me.

How do you base your knowledge/truth/belief? Through your experience. If you try to say that that experience is meaningless, then you're projecting another belief over the experience to deny that experience.

>>2774849
wut

>>2774855
>nihilism: denial of existence of knowledge or truth
How does the knowledge of non-existence of knowledge/truth come from? Nihilism asserts that knowledge/truth has no existence. This is a assertion. Its not a positive assertion, but an assertion nonetheless. With this assertion, nihilism's own assertion fall apart.

>>2774862
hahahahahhahaha.

>>2774862
Denial doesn't need to imply certainty, likeliness is enough. Nihilism in this sense is merely practical scepticism: Nothing of the like can be known or found, so it is disregarded.

>>2774947
It's only practical when you kill yourself.

>>2774951
That's a common error about nihilism. Without any values to live by, the choice between life and death becomes arbitrary. One can just as well go on living as commit suicide.

It comes down to if you like sandbox games.

>>2774974
Sociopaths like sand in their gaping box sized anus.

>>2774981
>implying nihilists don't experience empathy just because they assign no special value to said empathy

You all realize that Nietsczhe coined the term and defined as "loser, who does not have the power to create meaning in his own life".
No sane person in 2012 believes in a teleological meaning of life anyway, so you are all just saying that you suck donkeyballs.

>>2775027
>Nietzsche coined the term

Confirmed for not knowing what you are talking about.

>>2775027

Didn't Turgenev invent the term?

>>2775027
>No sane person in 2012 believes in a teleological meaning of life anyway
not true

>>2775033
He made the term popular with his Fathers & Sons, but it already existed. His use of nihilism referred more to a cultural and political movement in Russia at the time though. As he presents the character Bazarov, he's more of a hard positivist with anarchist tendencies.

>>2775045

That makes sense, Bazarov's clearly not a nihilist in the way we think of the term today. I had heard somewhere that the author had, in fact, come up with the term on his own. But that's likely a mistake.

On another note, do you think Turgenev was supporting or parodying Bazarov's worldview? The book read to me as a little bit of both, but it's possible he was just examining the ideology with no clear intent as to any conclusions one might draw about it.

>>2775049
I'd say he was preaching against it. I sort of disliked the ending where Arkady returns to the status quo and ends up happily ever after, where the big bad nihilist dies a shitty death. I don't know much about Turgenev himself, but in the book he seems towards a position of moderate bourgeois liberal tendencies.

>>2775063

Yeah, the ending seemed a bit forced, it could have done with a little more ambiguity, but overall it was a pretty great book. I couldn't decide whether I liked Arkady or Bazarov more, they both were shitty at times, Bazarov was a cocky bastard, and Arkady was a latch-on, but the latter seemed to have his head way less up his ass, sometimes to a fault. It still bummed me out when Bazarov died. Despite his tryhard behavoir, he was a pretty interesting and (tenuously) sentimental character. I felt bad for him.

>>2775070
I liked Bazarov the most and found Arkady an annoying poseur. He's one of those generally likable and well meaning persons who can drive you to madness with their boring naivety and gullibility. He also has that pacifying quality about him, just like his father, that frustrates me. That whole "being radical is okay as long as we can be pleasant to one another" sort of thing that places sociability above all else. That tea parlour morality mostly reserved to old ladies.

Bazarov is of course a bit of a tryhard asshole, but I imagine it's not easy being one of the first edgy nihilists in Tsarist Russia. I find his flaws very forgiveable because of his sincerity. He has a Cynic quality about him.

>>2775099

I agree for the most part, Arkady was a far more fickle character than Bazarov, it seemed he was trying to have his cake and eat it too, as though he didn't have it within himself to fully commit to either Bazarov or his uncle/father's ideologies. This made him weak as a moral hero, which is why I thought Turgenev might be in support of Bazarov's ideology, given that he dies in the end, it's almost as if he was meant to be some kind of martyr for his cause, but when you take into consideration the fact that he was killed doing what was, in effect, a service to humanity (practicing medicine like his father), it's a little less clear. All this made the work a little ambiguous in my mind as to where Turgenev was going with the moral points he was trying to make, but none less intriguing and insightful.

>>2775108
I agree, it's not a very clear case. He might as well have been saying "if you wan't to be happy, be an average dunce and if you want to seek truth or authenticity you will pay the price". Of course, Turgenev couldn't openly agree with Bazarov anyway, since it was still a novel written in Tsarist Russia.

I found it a great work as well, but I haven't quite figured out why. It's not a very specific appreciation, but there's just something about it that hits home.

Also, tfw actually discussing books on /lit/

>>2775130

>I haven't quite figured out why. It's not a very specific appreciation, but there's just something about it that hits home.

I know what you mean. I feel that way often about Russian literature, there's something about its tone that's vague and intoxicating, and somehow both dismal and romantic. I haven't read a work that was very similar in approach, and given the time/location it was written in, it's undoubtedly unique. Apparently its release caused a huge shitstorm, with the populace uncertain whether he was decrying old-fashioned Russian morality or making a grand case for its utility (a confusion that, obviously, persists to this day).

I haven't read anything else by the man, and I'm pretty sure its his only novel (correct me if I'm wrong). I definitely want to see what else he's done, I don't think he was all that prolific in any case.

Also, I know, right? What the fuck is going on?

>>2775146
Obolomov, another great Russian work by a not so prolific author who nonetheless left his mark on literature, also left me with a feeling of the sort.

I also like archetypical characters in general. It allows for a character study of not really a person but an idea lived to its full extend.

>>2775207

I've heard it mentioned on here a few times, it's on my list, I'll definitely have to check it out.

>I also like archetypical characters in general

It depends on the work in question, for me. Sometimes it's a great technique but it can also be used poorly (see: Ayn Rand). If the author's capable of using such a character to convey something novel or creative, or at least intriguing, it can be wonderful (and often tragic or hilarious) to see where an ideology or way of living goes when fleshed out to the extreme.

It can be great when used in a shitty and obvious way too. Sade, for example.But the problem with Rand is that there is no humour involved either, I take it.

>>2775834

>no humour involved

Understatement of the century.

>Sade, for example

I agree, completely. The man was on another level.

>>2775834
nothing is funny
nothing is anything
you're silly

Nihilism is one of those things that encompasses it all and so it puts everything in perspective.

Honestly, on a most basic level, I see no difference between nihilism, zen buddhism or taoism, complete ignorance followed by joy, suicidal depression, hedonism, science, modernism in art, etc., etc., etc.

It states something which is natural and fairly easy to comprehend: things are born, shit happends, things die, everything is made of nothing, nothing is potentially everything, there is no meaning because we are the ones who create meaning when we think about it. What is hard is to accept and to live with those things in mind.

What differs from one to the other is just the "poetry" behind the idea, that is, the words they choose to say it, the way they approach it and so on. You can find all of this depressive or funny as hell, you can say fuck to all or engage with things more than ever. The definition in itself predicts this (when it says there is no inherited meaning to things).

nihilism and absolutism are both human conceptions that are opposite of each other.

nihilism = no knowledge what so ever
absolutism = absolute true knowledge

Nihilism's downfall is that if there is no knowledge whatsoever then its own premise falls apart.
Absolutism's downfall is that our own perception isnt telling us what is happening in the real world.

We need something that explains the inherent nature of knowledge that neither of those captures.

>>2775876
>Honestly, on a most basic level, I see no difference between nihilism, zen buddhism or taoism, complete ignorance followed by joy, suicidal depression, hedonism, science, modernism in art, etc., etc., etc.
Are you a retard or something?

>>2775895
>Nihilism's downfall is that if there is no knowledge whatsoever then its own premise falls apart.


incorrect. it's not making a claim that there is no knowledge, it's rejecting the claim that there is knowledge. it's not introducing any presuppositions. are you familiar with burden of proof>

>>2775914
No and I've given you my reasons. I think we perpetuate an illusion that these mindsets are separate from each other, so we engage in discussions which are, in the end, going over abstract concepts, words which we associate with the real things as if the connection was already there. I don't believe in disagreement, I believe in the miscomprehension of one another.

>>2775930
The rejection of "there is a knowledge" is a knowledge itself. If its not a knowledge, then it isnt true. Its a contradiction.

>>2775939
fuck you're a silly bastard

>>2775939

you don't think a nihilism wouldn't be aware of this so called "contradiction"? if anything it's evidence that even the knowledge of non-knowledge is itself nothing. nihilism doesn't make any claims. it only deflects all of them, nullifies the power of knowledge, and accepts "nothing" as truth.

I have ponder the concept by some time now and for a self-aware nihilist the only answer is suicide.

I found it as a great tool for destroying all the preconceptions of the biased family, education and society, yet you can't stuck with nihilism and carry on with your life.

Absurdism is a natural option for post-nihilist.

>>2775952
Nihilism when it was formed by Nietzsche wasnt well thought out. What you're doing is trying to patch it up by siphoning new knowledge from other sources, namely idealists.

>nihilism doesn't make any claims. it only deflects all of them, nullifies the power of knowledge, and accepts "nothing" as truth.
If it deflects it, then the nihilist would have to reject their own non-position as well. To stick to nihilism is a contradiction. Since nihilism rejects all forms of knowledge, naturally the form that we understand nihilism as must be abandoned as well. In which case the nihilism is nullified. However this leaves you open to another position that is not nihilism, but something akin to buddhist's emptiness or zen's un-conceptualized mind. There is a huge difference between nihilism and that, however if you fail to see it, I cant help much with it.

>>2775952
This.

The negation of all truth claims is no more a truth claim than the negation of all religion is a religion.

>>2775973
you're obfuscating the statement.

Negation of all truth claims is a truth claim in itself. Thus the the negation must also apply to itself.

Religion cannot be used in the same context because its conveys a different message.

Here's the logic structure (catuskoti)

P (this is) (absolutism)
~P (this is not) (absolutism)
P ∧ ~P (both) (contradiction)
~ (P ∧ ~P) (neither) (nihilism)

All those positions lead to false logical conclusions.

>>2775969
>Nihilism when it was formed by Nietzsche wasnt well thought out.
I'm afraid your wrong concerning this. The term existed long before Nietzsche, and nihilism as a term used by Nietzsche denotes something very different than the nihilism we are discussing now. Nietzsche used it as people that place their values in something otherworldly, which, not existing, are actually based in nothingness. Thus Nietzsche claimed Christianity to be nihilistic, for example.

>In which case the nihilism is nullified
Thus bringing itself to it utter logical end, whereby everything, including itself, is nullified. Glorious. This is actually an argument for nihilism being totally consistent by not being the exception to it's own rule.

I think zen is closely related to nihilism, but even more so to scepticism. Zen is even more refined and carefull in not making such forceful claims, always stating "not this, not the other", "not one, not two" et cetera. It has learned to not even engage in the game of truth anymore.

Not the guy you were responding to by the way.

>>2776000
boring

>hurr logic
>hurr truth
>HURR BODHIDHARMA

>>2775995
Anything all encompassing must per definition transcend logic, for a statement concerning anything ceases to discriminate and therefore becomes officially meaningless, but can still mean a great deal to people.

Take for example the Vedantic notion that everything is God and certain scientific notions that everything is matter. Essentially they mean the same, since they are all encompassing and therefore don't have any specific features apart from those of the totality of existence. Still, accepting these notions still have entirely different consequences for the people accepting them.

>>2776006
>intimidated by post sporting the triple nil in a nihilist topic

I see there's some motherfucking anarchists in here.
-socialrupture
-politics is not a banana

awwww yeah

>>2776027
so cool & tough

>>2776000
>1
Right, but the word nihilism is often attributed to Nietzsche so I had assumed this. We can ignore this point then.

>2
So if we remove the nihilistic position, aka itself, then we're left with non-nihilistic position that bypasses nihilistic position. Can we say really say this is really nihilism if it refutes nihilism? I think we're at a word game here. What you think is nihilism isnt what is nihilism. Its the non-position similar to the one buddhist chose: to abandon both absolutist, nihilism, and contradictions all together. I can see how you may relate zen to nihilism, but that still an incorrect classification. However think of it this way. Lets say I have this position that states, "earth always exist." Now suppose earth was suddenly gone, and I still claim "earth always exist." My basis is that even if earth doesnt exist right now, earth still exist. Because of this, my position that "earth always exist" is true. This is how you're trying to present your ideas to me. The so called "nihilism" is not nihilism. If it were, then it would be self defeating. By accepting that nihilism itself cannot be a truth claim, you're abandoning nihilism to a state of non-position.

>>2776029
Wasn't really *trying* to be tough. But I guess this will do.

>>2776037
you realise you're just re-wording points he has refuted already, right?

>>2777611
Then you didnt understand the post's point.

>>2776029
>This is the only counterargument against anarchism and anarchy in the entirety of the internet.
>It's an ad hominem also.

Fucking lol.

>>2777616
>implying anarchism requires an argument to be rejected as fucking retarded

>>2777635
>I dont have an argument but ur dum lol xD

Okay, pal!

>>2777637
glad we see eye-to-eye

>>2772354
struck a nerve?

>>2776009
Uhh Logic already has the Universeal Quantified

>>2776037
You seem overly concerned with the viability of nihilism as a system of knowledge. However, you never proved that nihilism is knowledge. Perhaps, then, we might consider nihilism the complete absence of "Will to Knowledge" and the simple quest for obtaning conscience (instead of knowledge) of reality. That is, to realize the empty space where it was thought to be no empty space (i.e. is the glass indeed half-empty? is it even half-full?).

>>2777801
Ok then if Nihilism isnt a knowledge/truth, then it has no assertive power behind it. If it does not claim truth/knowledge, why even consider such a possibility seriously? Its has no more assertiveness than say a fictional concepts, then why should we consider nihilism to be a valid approach?

>>2777810
because, if it's the search for knowledge you want, the alternatives are even worse

>>2777841
We must, however, march towards a superior form of contact with reality. That is, the realization of what senses, feelings, thoughts can not show us. This I call conscience. This is the call of nihilism. That the scope of our present abilities is inherently limited to that which it proposes itself to achieve. It is precisely by overcoming those abilities, by entirely knowing oneself, which is the only thing possible of knowing, that one must proceed to higher forms of conscience, now completly detached from the small reality which our contemporaries so dearly hold against their infatuated eyes, in their futile hopes of understanding that which is not meant to be understood!

Therefore how ignorant do you sound. Therefore how despisable any effort to spread knowledge or to make people read. Therefore how despisable any effort in this world that not knowing oneself.

>>2777810
What you tell me is that knowledge is the only way of perceiving reality. And you even go as far as equating it to truth! Oh, how brutish, my friend! This is both false and stupid. Are we not past the point of realizing that concept and reality are not one and the same!?

There are both superior and inferior forms to knowledge of perceiving reality. As above, so below. So, I ask you to consider a wild animal which is incapable of knowledge. He perceives reality merely through his senses and has only one filter for that reality: the accumulated body of older sensations registered in his own brain by mechanisms which are incovenient to be explained at this present text.

Humans are superior to that in which they create subjective preferences to those same "sensations", that is, those same "realities", being capable of objectively measuring reality so as to improve the most productive and efficient way of achieving them. Now, before we proceed, let me further explain what we mean by "sensations" and "realities", with an analogy: think of it as equivalent propositions in formal logic. That is, equivalent arragements of realities and perceptions that satisfy their own past framework, crystallized in their brains.

Now tell me, my dearest board, oh glorious /lit/! - what is the difference between a wise man and a well-read man?

>>2777844

Bullshit.

Since I believe no one here is going to confront my ideas for a while, I ask your excuse for a while, just enough for me to attend to my medical appointment (nihilists too, get sick, after all). While I'm out, I'll leave you gents with dandy music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzQejxJqW6w

>>2777841
>>2777844

I never suggested that knowledge leads to "real" reality. However knowledge = truth. And I will stand by this assertion because this is the only position to take. A direct observation without prior conception could lead to observing the "real" unknown reality. But it is impossible to deconstruct prior conception as of now and into the foreseeable future. If you know how, show me a scientific method of doing this. In our case we assume the impossibility(or maybe improbability) of ever seeing the real reality, thus has to assume that knowledge points to the the truth of the known reality. Knowledge or any form will never point to the unknown reality because to do so is to conceptualize the unconceptualized.

Also your wild animal vs human seems very flawed. A wild animal is very much capable of knowledge. We ourselves are nothing more than animals. To say humans can form knowledge and animals cant is "both false and stupid." You say humans are superior because they have subject-pov. This subject-pov is shown in animals too. You also say say we can form a superior form of contact with reality. How so can we form a superior/true contact with reality if the subjective-master is still there? You said all things human experience are subjective but you never exercise the same principle to your own concept of self, why is the self so sacred yet all things else bound to subjectivity? Where is the logic in this?

Cont..

>>2777872
1. You assert something without proving, yet demands that I prove my already demonstrated point. This is rude, dislikable and offensive.

2. How deeply ignorant and incapable of understanding you show yourself. Do we not understand that what is "real" is only real in relation to something?

3. Humans are only "categorized" as animals by our flawed method of biological classification, proposed by a Swedish autist. The bourgeois, of course, filthy animals they are, would much rather see man as an animal, therefore excusing his (the bourgeois's) insatiable lust for sex, food and material posession then to seem so "pretentious and unselfish" as to classify humans are something inevitably higher, as did the Aristocracy.

The stench of bourgeois humility sickens me.

4. Animals do not have subjective preferences. They separate things, by instinct, into what maintains survival, what does not, and what threatens survival.

>>2777872
If you want to say "I think therefore I am", how can thinkers exists without any thoughts? Can a killer be a killer without having killed anyone? Can a mover be a mover without having moved anything? Can actor be an actor if he or she has never acted? Without a direct link between those two there cannot be any existence of either of them. You say we can know the direct reality or higher reality by relinquishing our thoughts. But how can we know the direct reality if the basis of our self isnt even evident anymore? And if there is no evident self in this ultimate reality, then how can nihilism's position be true at all on any levels of reality? And how can we know ourselves if there is no ourselves present in the ultimate sense?

Your premise makes no sense with your conclusion.

ITT: spooks, spooks everywhere
>nihilists inventing their own morals, values, casus bellis through their feels and egos
AND WHAT CAN WE DO OTHER THAN ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR EGOS?!
some people fuck women, some people invent philosophies and pound their mental cocks into truth/whatever

it's beautiful

>>2777884
I love how the so called "nihilists" try to create a new values/truth system and say this isnt against nihilism at all.

>You also say say we can form a superior form of contact with reality. How so can we form a superior/true contact with reality if the subjective-master is still there? You said all things human experience are subjective but you never exercise the same principle to your own concept of self, why is the self so sacred yet all things else bound to subjectivity? Where is the logic in this?

1. I never said all things human experience are subjective

2. Where is the logic in your questioning?

>>2777883
You continue to show yourself ignorant and incapable of comprehending even the simplest of texts. The rule "as above, so below" continues valid (possibly ad infinitum, as far as we know) and therefore the higher kind of mankind, the "übermensch" has not "understanding" of REALITY ITSELF, but rather of the perception of reality generated by this contact called conscience.

Also, I do not say "I think therefore I am". This is a bad rationalization by itself and anyone with half a brain can see it.

>>2777886
Kids still do not the difference between A, B and C. How sad

>>2777886
egotism and values are inescapable unless you're the buddha

>>2777896
Therefore, how does one into buddha?

>>2777897

Consider a finger, pointing to the moon.

>>2777847
>>2777847
>>2777847
Here, I proposed a more interesting question that nobody dared answer.

>>2777907
More music then, perhaps this will enlighten you.

>>2777890
>1. I never said all things human experience are subjective.
>objective reality
AHAHAHAHAHAHA you seriously? This discussion again? Done to death already

>2. Where is the logic in your questioning?
I assumed that you presented yourself as denier of the what we know as truth. So this leads me to say you believe there is something unknown that is true. Which leads question how we can know this unknown at all? Since you seem to deny knowledge as the basis of truth, then you must also deny the knowledge of self. In which case you cannot possibly know. However what I see you doing is holding on to the self knowledge and trying to see the the non-knowable reality from a knowable pov. Which you seem to overlook.

>>2777912
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju7jb1rkyK0

>>2777907
a wise man knows truths about human living-together won through experience, not necessarily communicable. a well-read man knows imaginative truths and things about the artistic, literary, humanistic efforts of the human race, necessarily communicable. one can be both simultaneously, and being well-read can help one be wise. in one phrase, the difference is that the first person knows intuitive moral truths and the other knows analytic cultural/imaginative truths.

>>2777914
Kid, go back to bed, you do not know shit.

1. There's AN objective reality, that does NOT equal ABSOLUTE REALITY

2. There's AN objective self knowledge.

And you claim to know that everything is relative.

>>2777919
seems legit.

>>2777922
probably better to say "commonsense" than "objective"

altho that's more a point of interpretation and emphasis than a real disagreement

>>2777922
>I'm RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG BECAUSE I SAY SO.

Sounds like you're the kid here.

>>2777932
So you want to start an ego-fighting? How deeply primitive.

>>2777938
Nah, we can just drop this subject all together all call it a day. Terminology differences/different basis of logic are confusing each other. And this is leading us into kiddish name calling.

>>2777915
>>2777915
>>2777915
>>2777915
>>2777915
very good music. i approve of it.

>>2777947
As above, so below.

>>2777777