/lit/ - Literature

>>5460941
you're chatting shit m8

>>5460947
Do you disagree?

>>5460951
It doesn't make sense

>>5460957
Existentialist philosophy basically boils down to:

There is no inherent meaning in the universe, so the best thing anyone can do is create his own meaning and live his life that way.

Also Sprach Zarathustra is about a guy who goes around doing just that while he espouses Nietzsche's philosophy, which is basically:
>God is dead, morality as it is is a sham, and man must overcome himself and in so doing recreate himself and his values

Nietzsche basically gives you the same message Sartre, Camus, and co. do, but his prose and his sense of humor are better and his philosophy is much more rigorous and complete. Sartre says: Go create your own meaning! Camus says: Rebel against the Absurd! Nietzsche says: There is only your meaning, and rebellion against the absurd is absurd.

Existentialists present a very skewed view of the phenomena they talk about, too. Sartre's description of consciousness is intended to be depressing. It isn't anything groundbreaking in philosophy: William James was writing about the stream of consciousness before Sartre was even born, and he didn't seem to think it was worth falling into utter despair over. Most of the things that cause 'despair' in existentialist literature are things that philosophies that came before them already turned into not-awful things. The experience of Being suspended over Nothing? That's Hegel, and Hegel didn't get upset about it. He found great joy in it.

Also, most existentialist philosophers stopped being existentialists. If anything, existentialism is nothing but an intermediary stage between nihilism and authenticity, but one that manages to get caught up on talking about the pursuit of authenticity and doesn't really do much to move in that direction.

Nietzsche's philosophy is more authentic through and through than any existentialist's was. What does that tell you about existentialism and Nietzsche? Who better understood the core concept of 'living authentically/willfully in a valueless/meaningless world,' and who thought of it first?

F.N.

>>5460941
And they said autism was an imaginary illness.

>>5460941
yep pretty much. No arguments here.

>>5460941
Lol, someone doesn't have enough memory to be an existentialist.

>>5461096
What does that even mean?

Nietzsche is just existentialism for people who don't have the balls to be nihilists.

>>5461132
>Aspiring to nihilism

>>5461140
>implying there's any other way if we're going to be intellectually honest

>>5461109
Existentialists are more prone to arguing that a person is a sum of their recollected subjective experiences rather than their immediate subjective experience as nihilists might get as far as if they accept experience has any hold in the system. So, for existentialists, other people exist only in terms of your experience of them through memory and immediate experience, but for nihilists that you're even having an immediate experience might be in doubt, let alone your memory of other experiences.

>>5461146
>Implying nihilism isn't something to be overcome
>>5461158
Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist. I'm not a nihilist. I'm not arguing as a nihilist and I agree that a nihilist is just someone who doesn't have enough memory to be an existentialist.

>>5461166
>implying deluding oneself is overcoming anything

>>5461176
>Implying it's possible to function as a human being without a working concept of morality
>Implying you're as amoral as all nihilists like to think they are

>>5461132
Is this guy the final boss of philosophy?

>>5461166
Nihilism being something to overcome despite it's pervasive nature is a response to accepting the premise of nihilism- so we would disagree that
Nietzsche was a nihilist, but I sense you mean Nietzsche was a proponent of actively striving against the obvious nihilism of our existence. (I'll admit there my clumsy phrasing might cause us to talk past each other, but Nietzsche thought nihilism was very much real and foundational to his philosophy and all philosophy is the point I want to stress)

Further, for Nietzsche there is a few instances where he suggests actively forgetting as more prideful than succumbing to the sway of memory. The existentialist view would have this as an erasure of the self, while, for Nietzsche or those who accept nihilism without rising against it, it would be an enhancement of the self. Divorcing oneself from history is a large part of how to deal with nihilism one finds abundant in Nietzsche's world view, and part of that is best achieved by forgetting. For existentialists, that's a scarier proposition which is more likely to lose oneself in nihilism than save one from it.

>>5461236
I don't disagree with you at all.

Calling someone "edgy" is fucking meaningless and serves only to shame people for having unpopular opinions/behaviors by making it seem like they're inauthentic and crave attention for being different.

OP is a faggot.

>>5461260
Yah, you couldn't we don't exist. ;^)

>>5461186
>implying that nihilists can't have a personal concept of morality based on subjective emotions whilst admitting it has no objective grounding

>>5461270
lel
>>5461281
>Implying you can believe in the existence of emotions and be a nihilist

>>5461285
Name one reliable source that says moral nihilists don't believe humans have emotions

>>5461294
Shift your goalposts more m8

>>5461294
Nihilists literally don't believe in anything.

>>5461043
I would like to add to this that the main character in The Stranger's disenfranchisement with society is practically a mirror image to Nietzsche's disdain of slave morality. The only difference is that Nietzsche had a specific purpose which is to replace it with master morality and master goals. Camus repeatedly insists for a bullshit reason that one must be content with a great big nothing.

Sartre was fine with being content with having one decide one's own goals. The difference between him and Nietzsche, though, is that Nietzsche actually tried to investigate human nature and determine what kinds of things would help one lead a satisfactory life. Much like Camus, Sartre insisted that there was no such human nature and instead there was a great big nothing and that everything was permitted.

As we go down the line, we see that each one of these individuals has picked up on part of Nietzsche's philosophy and then insisted a nothing where Nietzsche posited a something. If one doesn't like part of Nietzsche's philosophy that's fine, but why wouldn't just read Nietzsche and engage in a dialectic process to determine what one accepts and doesn't accept. Much better for the mind and provides options whereas people like Sartre and Camus took away the nuance and options and just streamlined it for the masses.

>>5461299
How am I shifting goalposts? I'm not the person he was responding to before

>>5460941
>Stealing this from the Camus thread
If you're the anon who replied to that post and actually said that he was gonna use it, good job on following through.

>>5461310
I was the one who first coined it a couple days ago, actually. I thought it deserved its own thread.

>>5461313
I was also the anon that made that post, though.

>>5461300
There are many different kinds of nihilism. If you're talking about mereological or metaphysical nihilism, they deny the existence of composite objects and concrete reality respectively. However, these philosophies are less common than moral nihilism, which is the usual meaning of the term. A moral nihilist can easily accept the existence of objective reality and merely deny that morals are a part of it.

>>5461307
Nihilists =/= Moral nihilists
At least not as the schools of thought are generally defined. Much like Protestants aren't Greek Orthodox.

>>5461320
I'm talking about the belief that nothing exists and the acceptance of all that that implies.

Nietzsche deals with every kind of nihilism and offers the only solution: create yourself and build your something in the nothing.

>>5461329
>>5461336

This isn't nihilism. This is anti-realism. Moral nihilism is the most common usage of the term.

>>5461341
I'm not talking about moral nihilism. I'm talking about the nihilism that results from the acceptance of the Camusian Absurd and a lack of desire to fight against it.

I'm not talking about the particular nihilism you're talking about, so stop telling me that I am.

Once again, though, Nietzsche has a solution to moral nihilism, which is to create your own values.

>>5460941
I wonder where these creeps come from and why they think they need tripcodes.

>>5461341
This would be goal post shifting, which is funnier because nihilists and moral nihilists alike disagree with you. Anti-realism is not necessarily nihilistic at all.

>>5461329
That's a bad analogy. In the case of comparing nihilism and moral nihilism, you're saying a type of nihilism isn't part of the set of philosophies that contains it. Saying protestants aren't greek orthodox really isn't the same because both of them are types of Christianity. The logical equivalent would be saying that protestants aren't Christians. There are both realist and anti-realist forms of nihilism.

>>5461357
Again, tell me how this is goal-post shifting? Also, I never stated anti-realism was nihilistic. I said they're falsely equating nihilism with anti-realism.

>>5461348
Still, in that case, existential nihilism isn't necessarily the same as denial of objective reality.

>>5461358
> The logical equivalent would be saying that protestants aren't Christians.
No, I could draw you a diagram of why you're wrong with pretty little circles within circles but it would probably be better to socially shame you for saying something so retarded.

>>5461377
Isn't it, though? If you literally believe that nothing exists then you certainly don't believe in the existence of objective reality.
>>5461379
And then we'd all laugh at you for being a dumbass.

>>5461379
>No, I could draw you a diagram of why you're wrong with pretty little circles within circles but it would probably be better to socially shame you for saying something so retarded.

Surely illustrating how I'm wrong would be the best way to shame me and show I'm retarded?

>>5461384
Existential nihilism isn't the stance that nothing exists. It's the stance that objective purpose doesn't exist. Purpose isn't everything if you believe reality has objective existence.

>>5461313
>>5461318
Way to test out your shitposting in other semi-relevant threads before creating your own. Very thorough. Exceeded my expectations.

>>5461377
You just described a school of nihilism as
>This is anti-realism.
because you think it makes your argument that which is not moral nihilism shouldn't be labelled nihilism but instead anti-realism. Meanwhile, writers on nihilism, moral nihilism, and anti-realism have taken pains to not be conflated so. You only really have the power to relabel nihilism as anti-realism for yourself, which I wish you good luck with, but you'll miss where the goal is if you let any sense of the objective drift in.
>tl;dr
You're anti-realist.

>>5461400
Yeah, I try.

>>5461402
What the fuck? I'm not trying to conflate them. I'm arguing against them being conflated by saying that existential nihilism, moral nihilism and anti-realism are all separate, and that "nihilism" itself is a broad label for a set of philosophies which can be realist, anti-realist or not concern realism at all. Pull your head out of your ass.

>>5461432
I'm talking about 'nihilism,' the broad label for that set of philosophies. That's the only nihilism being discussed ITT, although I think I mixed it in with the Absurd a little bit, which may have caused confusion (my bad: in my mind, the notion of the Absurd is a product of nihilism, I don't know if that's a common way of thinking about it or not)

>>5461379
Protestant and Greek Orthodox don't overlap because they are overlapped by Christianity.
If you relabel them as nihilism and moral nihilism, there is still no need for an overlap, but labelling the larger circle as nihilism in place of
Christianity would be retarded. Which is what you'd have to do to make that logical conclusion of yours from my statement the two aren't equal. This is basic syllogism shit man.

But let's assume we label whatever overarches both nihilism and moral nihilism as NihilismButBigger- did this larger circle cause nihilism in the smaller circle to overlap its circle with moral nihilism? Are Protestants now practicing Orthodox rites because both are Christian? Do they have to overlap or equate at all to each other because they exist within a larger circle of Christianity, or do they only need overlap with the larger circle?

Really if you can't draw your own diagram from this and see you're using a term twice with two different meanings and areas, I'm glad you haven't picked up Kant. Because he would become equivalent to a nihilist by virtue of his antirealism, when instead he went the virtue ethicist route.

>>5460941
>>5460951
>>5461043
>>5461140
>>5461166
>>5461186
>>5461260
>>5461285
>>5461300
>>5461313
>>5461318
>>5461384
>>5461408
>>5461449
Nice! A new double digit IQ piece of shit troll with a trip so I can conveniently filter them.

>>5461300
But that's wrong. Nihilists literally believe nothing has VALUE or MEANING, it doesn't mean they REJECT facts (e.g. human emotion, gravity or electromagnetism).

>>5462091
>gravity's a fact
>especially on a mereological atomic level
This manages to get nihilism, science, and facticity wrong. Cool beliefs brah, shame they break down under close observation.

>>5462091
I think they're trolling anon. Like literally all they have to do is google nihilism but they can't do it

>>5462100
>mereological atomic level
Explain. If what you essentially meant is "muh quantum mechanics make even gravity a "random" thing", then I really won't bother arguing with you.

>>5462175
A graviton "belonging" to an atomic structure in specific being a meaningful distinction compared to an electron "belonging" to an atomic structure in specific or compared to a body not "belonging" to another body so as to be discrete entities or divisible entities at any of these points being considered not facts but heuristics by mereological nihilists would make any interaction of these non-facts subject to the same problem.
And quantum mechanics making gravity a thiiberian a graviton which gives gravity to another thing by belonging to another thing would also be one of those divisions which are seen as arbitrary, though it could be useful in certain applications. Relativity would be closer, but it still allows for discrete bodies, just less of them.

>>5462290
>thiiberian
I don't know what I did here.
>making gravity a thing by which a graviton gives gravity to another thing

>>5461300
how old are you?

>>5461318
nobody cares what you do

>>5460941
does anyone have the stu cooking pudding picture but with the obama conspiracy on it

>>5461096
Wow man, here I was just browsing 4 chan and then I read that and now I feel like shit. I wish I didnt do drugs.

>>5463334
>That pic
I'm dyin'

>>5462290
I feel like you're bullshitting me really hard right now, because you're making no sense to me.

>graviton
Those are purely hypothetical.

>>5464070
To make it easier- any division of anything is any less arbitrary or antithetical to any other division. Dividing table form from the air form around it is just as arbitrary as dividing gravity from the other particles around it.

I like how you interject that gyrations are purely hypothetical as though that's antithetical to nihilism at that level but the tl;dr simpletons' version is
>tables are purely hypothetical
gravity being purely hypothetical and unobservable at atomic levels doesn't seem to stop you using it

>>5465340
ISN'T less arbitrary. Obvi

>>5465340
>>5465341
And: Gyrations -> Gravitons

Off to find out who invented autocorrect and what their fucking problem is.