/lit/ - Literature

>>8492366
If you're trying to lift yourself out of nihilism, you can't. The way out is through, and only the beast you become at the bottom of the pit is strong enough to claw its way out. You can maybe save your social life by becoming an ironic walking Bernard Black reference but either way you're doomed to at least a few more years of misery.

>>8492377

That's some deep shit, anon. Thank you.

>>8492366
my diary, desu

>>8492377
>>8492366

All suffering is self caused. Have fun with your misery.

Nietzsche

You need to doubt everything before you can believe again -- this is natural.

Read Fear and Trembling by Kierkegaard.

>>8492366
>>8492377
>>8492388
THESE DIGITS THO

Stop hogging all the dubs in this thread

All Things Are Nothing To Me

What is not supposed to be my concern! First and foremost, the Good Cause, then God’s cause, the cause of mankind, of truth, of freedom, of humanity, of justice; further, the cause of my people, my prince, my fatherland; finally, even the cause of Mind, and a thousand other causes. Only my cause is never to be my concern. "Shame on the egoist who thinks only of himself!"

Let us look and see, then, how they manage their concerns – they for whose cause we are to labor, devote ourselves, and grow enthusiastic.

You have much profound information to give about God, and have for thousands of years "searched the depths of the Godhead," and looked into its heart, so that you can doubtless tell us how God himself attends to "God’s cause," which we are called to serve. And you do not conceal the Lord’s doings, either. Now, what is his cause? Has he, as is demanded of us, made an alien cause, the cause of truth or love, his own? You are shocked by this misunderstanding, and you instruct us that God’s cause is indeed the cause of truth and love, but that this cause cannot be called alien to him, because God is himself truth and love; you are shocked by the assumption that God could be like us poor worms in furthering an alien cause as his own. "Should God take up the cause of truth if he were not himself truth?" He cares only for his cause, but, because he is all in all, therefore all is his cause! But we, we are not all in all, and our cause is altogether little and contemptible; therefore we must "serve a higher cause." – Now it is clear, God cares only for what is his, busies himself only with himself, thinks only of himself, and has only himself before his eyes; woe to all that is not well-pleasing to him. He serves no higher person, and satisfies only himself. His cause is – a purely egoistic cause.

How is it with mankind, whose cause we are to make our own? Is its cause that of another, and does mankind serve a higher cause? No, mankind looks only at itself, mankind will promote the interests of mankind only, mankind is its own cause. That it may develop, it causes nations and individuals to wear themselves out in its service, and, when they have accomplished what mankind needs, it throws them on the dung-heap of history in gratitude. Is not mankind’s cause – a purely egoistic cause?

I have no need to take up each thing that wants to throw its cause on us and show that it is occupied only with itself, not with us, only with its good, not with ours. Look at the rest for yourselves. Do truth, freedom, humanity, justice, desire anything else than that you grow enthusiastic and serve them?

[cont]

>>8492419
They all have an admirable time of it when they receive zealous homage. Just observe the nation that is defended by devoted patriots. The patriots fall in bloody battle or in the fight with hunger and want; what does the nation care for that? By the manure of their corpses the nation comes to "its bloom"! The individuals have died "for the great cause of the nation," and the nation sends some words of thanks after them and – has the profit of it. I call that a paying kind of egoism.

But only look at that Sultan who cares so lovingly for his people. Is he not pure unselfishness itself, and does he not hourly sacrifice himself for his people? Oh, yes, for "his people." Just try it; show yourself not as his, but as your own; for breaking away from his egoism you will take a trip to jail. The Sultan has set his cause on nothing but himself; he is to himself all in all, he is to himself the only one, and tolerates nobody who would dare not to be one of "his people."

And will you not learn by these brilliant examples that the egoist gets on best? I for my part take a lesson from them, and propose, instead of further unselfishly serving those great egoists, rather to be the egoist myself.

God and mankind have concerned themselves for nothing, for nothing but themselves. Let me then likewise concern myself for myself, who am equally with God the nothing of all others, who am my all, who am the only one.

If God, if mankind, as you affirm, have substance enough in themselves to be all in all to themselves, then I feel that I shall still less lack that, and that I shall have no complaint to make of my "emptiness." I am not nothing in the sense of emptiness, but I am the creative nothing, the nothing out of which I myself as creator create everything.

Away, then, with every concern that is not altogether my concern! You think at least the "good cause" must be my concern? What’s good, what’s bad? Why, I myself am my concern, and I am neither good nor bad. Neither has meaning for me.

The divine is God’s concern; the human, man’s. My concern is neither the divine nor the human, not the true, good, just, free, etc., but solely what is mine, and it is not a general one, but is – unique, as I am unique.

Nothing is more to me than myself!

>>8492366
Jordan B Petersonism

Neoplatonism, if you take a more pantheist approach to the All

>>8492419
>All Things Are Nothing To Me
This is such a poor translation, it's astounding actually.

>>8492539
They explain it in footnotes, in fairness.

>>8492366
Apparently you didn't start with the Greeks. Start with the Greeks.

>>8492377
Can we make Bernard /lit/'s hero already jizus

>>8492402
Absolute bullshit

>>8492366
Joseph Campbell (heroes) and Carl Jung (archetypes).

>>8492403
second this

life

>>8492366

have you read Pascal's Pensees? they predate nihilism by a long time, since it is XVII century literature, but it may be what you need.

>>8492423
>self pride

sounds spooky

philosophy is food to nihilism. philosophy is miasma.

best anti-nihilist philosophy? become a farmer

>>8493121
>become a farmer
huh
Henry David Thoreau?

>>8492402
ahahahahahhahaahahaha

>>8493096
Look into death by starvation by hegesias of cyrene for really old nihilism.

>>8492377
Can you say you're through?
Please be sincere.

>>8492366
Tolstoy's Confession - only a God can save the one from the nihilism that inevitably is at the end of the road; and Tolstoy's the closest thing we have

>>8493618
how? it's gone, hombre.

>>8492860
This.

>>8493121
Don Quijote and Candide second this.

>>8492388

Phosphorescent blues

>>8492377
The Divine Comedy

http://oodegr.co/english/filosofia/nihilism_root_modern_age.htm

>>8492366
If your an atheist you can't escape nihilism. Atheism is just a branch of nihilism and an atheist rejecting nihilism is objectively wrong.

>>8492408
Top post

>>8495226
Contemplate its ideal form, pleb

>>8495764
Nice. You almost got me with that bait.

>>8493121
Wrong.

>>8492377
this post is exactly why nihilism is cringe tier
It's like the metal of philosophy while Plato and Aristotle are its Bach and Beethoven.

>>8492366
You can accept what you want out of philosophy, its not your instruction to life and its not a guide to YOUR life,

This is the way I see it

We live to be as full as possible, we are never complete. So your life has to be centered on doing as much, and achieving as much as you can Carpe Diem. Every day you wake up find new purpose and be optimistic. You can always learn more, and achieve more no matter your age. Because frankly, in 60 years you'll be dead, and in 100 years you'll be forgotten. But notice, Alexander the Great, Plato, David Bowie, Robin Williams, Shakespeare, Mozart, ZYZZ, they all did extraordinary things. We wont forget them, simply cause of that.

But to find the key to happiness, is to accept first, that you're a nobody. Like 98% of the world, you are an insignificant, and you should love it, and you should strive to evolve out of it.

But then again, this is my philosophy. If you were a real thinker, you'd think about what's fact and opinion, before accepting Nihilism as a guide. It is only a philosophy, you take what you WANT from it

>>8495915
That would make Nietzsche some ironic parody of metal? Perhaps some avant-grade music that through the precise use of the forms makes fun of metal and at the same time creates something better?

>>8492912
Absolute truth. Depression is learned helplessness. I can't blame you entirely because your decisions to be a shitter aren't entirely conscious. Consider anti-depressants.

>>8493581
Do you feel better now

>>8492418
Seconding this. I don't think it will save you from nihilism, since its a Christian work and you won't find any antidote in it unless you are already Christian. But it is certainly the greatest essay ever written on the source of nihilism. It's extremely critical of Nietzsche, but also very influenced by his work and his, especially his work on society's confrontation with nihilism. I'd recommend it to anyone.

>>8492366

Marxism.

>>8496016
>trying to find meaning in a failed political and economic system
More like "modern versions of Marxism", if anything.

>he wants to "overcome" nihilism
>he sees "nihilism" as inherently pessimistic and morbid
>he believes that because there are no objective values or beliefs, one cannot impose any subjective values and beliefs upon one's self
>he doesn't wish to indulge in nihlistic hedonism not realizing that hedonism is more than sex and drugs, but even if it were there is no reason to see this as a "bad" thing for "right" and "wrong" are man made concepts

You are free to do whatever you want OP. Liberate yourself from these shackles brother; you are still capable of feeling pleasure, of striving for something desirable. What is it you desire?

>>8496183
whats the point

>>8496196
There's meaning to be found through self-knowledge. By knowing yourself you can thrive for those things that deeply satisfy your own standards and ambitions, even if you fully acknowledge that those aspirations are meaningless in the big scheme of things.
The tricky part on this ride is to truly know yourself. If one plans to dedicate their live to this task then it must be the most serious and important thing in their entire worldview, otherwise you're bound to fail because you're not giving it enough importance to do whatever it takes to achieve said knowledge.

>>8496196
No point in what? No point to whom?

There is no objective point in anything. However, I continue to do things because they are enjoyable to me. Therefore, the point is TO MAKE ME FEEL "GOOD" and there IS a point TO ME. I don't care if it doesn't matter in the long run. I don't care if it doesn't matter to anyone else. It matters to me. Now. I am telling you this because I want you to not feel hollow, because it will make ME feel good that YOU feel good too.

You're feeling apathetic, Anon. Misery, anguish; these things you can dig yourself out of. Apathy is the most difficult of all. You can overcome it, but I'm not saying you will. In fact, you might never. But it doesn't mean you can't nor that you have to; You're not obligated to overcome it if you don't want to Anon.

Look at this meme picture, Anon. It's the most baby-tier philosophy picture of all time, probably the first picture someone sees when they're introduced to nihilism. Doesn't make it any less true though; in order to become the sleazy 90s cat on the right, you're gonna have to be the guy on the left for a while.

if youre truly apathetic send me whatever money you have in your account to me since it doesnt matter desu

>>8496223
i didnt upload the fucking picture god dammit

lets see if i get right this time

>>8496223
So unless you're a sociopath, it's a worthless philosophy?

>>8496244
Absolutely not. I'm sure those with a conscience are able to benefit from nihilism as much as their sociopathic companions.

One is still able to hold on to ethics and morality from the same foundation of "do good things to other because they feel good"; I make children laugh because their laughter makes me feel joy. I take care of the ill because their misery puts an emotional burden on me, knowing I might lose someone I care about soon and an empathetic reaction knowing that if I was in their place, they'd likely do the same for me. I give to the homeless because the subtle annoyance of giving money doesn't even begin compare to the satisfaction I receive from helping someone else, especially when they show genuine appreciation for it.

Nihilism doesn't mean giving up your morals, not unless you're able to completely ignore your biological urges to care for the well-being of you and your own species.

>>8495894
Who are the bottom three?

>>8496260
That's sociopathic "morality". You don't have to be Hannibal Lecter to be a sociopath.

>>8496273
Old white men, who gives a shit.

>>8496274
It's human nature. We sacrifice ourselves because our pain is easier to stomach than the pain of others suffering. How is that sociopathy? You do realize sociopathy is an outdated term referring to people who show antisocial tendencies, completely disregarding the health of others, right?

???

>>8496280
I do pls tell

>>8496289
From left to right: Pyrrho, Epicurus, and Gregory Palamas.

>>8496299
Thank you.

>>8496015
>>8492418

How well does it handle or deal with Stirner?

>>8492377
did you write this yourself?

>>8492366
jeremy commonforth - the urine tapes

>>8496006
Nietzsche is like Varg's prison stuff

>>8492377
I used to tell myself this but there really is no way out.

The good thing is, you can just make your home at the bottom of the pit and get pretty comfy there for the short while your life lasts.

The trick is to be like the last man.

>>8493023
>>8492403
This.

>>8492419
>>8492423
what a bunch of nonsense
the self is an illusion, all is related, when you do good for someone else you're doing good for yourself, there's no difference between your pain and somebody else's pain because everything effects everything else, the only thing being an immoral egoist will lead to is chaos

the bible, starting with ecclesiastes. also, dostoevsky and kierkegaard.

>>8496609
>there's no difference between your pain and somebody else's pain
My pain is pain, the other person's pain exists merely conceptually to me. It might as well not be pain at all, hippie.

>>8496630
yes, but that pain exists in the same reality you exist in, effecting his behavior, his behavior effects other people which effect other people and eventually yourself, multiply by a billion immoral faggots and you've got yourself the modern world.

>>8496590
>I used to tell myself this but there really is no way out.
Sure there is, if you're rich :)

>>8496609
>the self is an illusion, all is related, when you do good for someone else you're doing good for yourself, there's no difference between your pain and somebody else's pain because everything effects everything else

The conspiracy against the human race by Thomas Ligotti

>>8492366

The Quran

>>8496609
>there's no difference between your pain and somebody else's pain
So if I get a raging erection and cum the hardest I have ever cum just from cutting myself because I'm a sadomasochist, would I be inflicting pleasure on someone when I move on to cut them???

>>8496637
How can you be so certain that everybody perceives reality in the same way? It is effectively only a personal internal processing/interpretation of what their own senses tell them, and God know how those people process those signals. Nobody is born exactly the same way unless they are twins, clones, and so on.

>>8496696
Agree, I think that Muhammad was übermensch as fuck

>Born in tough mecca hoods
>See some holy shit
>Enlightened, unite whole nations of nomads under your prophecies and conquer succesfully places of culture and civilization
>Have a harem, molest qt lolis
>Once retired, fly into heaven with a winged horse

Based Muhammad

>>8496746

Inshallah, my brother.

>>8496746
Can't be the Overman when you're Allah's cuck, matey.

>>8496760
>Muhammad allah's cuck

If you honestly think that Muhammad got high orders?
He was his own boss and he bossed everyone else, if something wasn't as he wanted - a vision! and everybody kissed his feet
That's the prophet life I understand, not that virgin-kike-dying-of-starvation-on-a-cross kind of prophet life

>>8496730
>So if I get a raging erection and cum the hardest I have ever cum just from cutting myself because I'm a sadomasochist, would I be inflicting pleasure on someone when I move on to cut them???

You're obviously far too stupid to understand metaphysical concepts but I'll try to elaborate, so your feeble mind would have a chance to comprehend, good and bad exist in the world as our instinctual capacity to feel them, our basic understanding of good and bad from the purely emotional, the yet untainted by the "reason" perception of good and bad that is, is simple and equal to all the human species, we all like to feel good, and we all feel good from the same things, love, when people treat us nicely, sensual pleasure etc and we all feel bad from the opposite of what I've listed, these elemental "emotional atoms" if you will are the way we all similarly experience good and bad in the same manner, the actual subjective experience itself is of no relevance, as long as we are able to discern the pragmatic experience and communicate it through language sufficiently it is proof enough for he sufficient similarity of subjective phenomenona, when reason starts to kick in the understanding of good and bad can be influenced by the consciousness' ability to give and take meaning to Platonic forms of feelings and thoughts and thus effecting the way we experience them, the masochist in your example is suffering from a distorted view of good and bad making him take pleasure, unnaturally, from hurting himself, the pleasure he feels from distorting his natural inclination for the elemental good and bad are immoral by themselves and although their effect on the greater whole is complicated as much as everything else it can be said that he is taking pleasure from something that is wrong and that would propogate his need to feel further pleasure from further wrongness distorting more and more the lines between what he perceives as good and bad, the person he would cut would be more liable to do bad because the will to good and bad directly connects to one's state of mind, he will be more liable to come back home and shout at his wife for no reason other than that he feels shitty, she will be more liable to the an immoral action now because *She* feels bad at her husband shouting at her and goes to work and lets out her frustration at someone etc etc until it comes back to the masochist, like energy distribution, there's a balance of good and bad existing in our reality and one's thoughts feelings and actions all contribute to its general sum.

>>8496778

Holy crap that was gay to read.

Deleuze desu

>>8496638
Nah

>>8496849
Dong ding!

>>8496838
nah, deleuze ist pretty nihilistic

Here, read this, wuss

>>8496965
this desu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5bU7ibqGko

>>8492366
Ulysses.

It's the most dull plot anyone could ever think up. An average guy doing average stuff. Joyce compares this guy to one of the greatest heroes in literature.

Joyce doesn't just tell you that this man's life is worth a story, he shows you by using the most elegant writing ever to turn the boring plot into something you can read over and over.

The lesson is it's all a matter of perspective. Even the most boring and basic things in life can be appreciated as grand works of art if you think about it that way.

You could improve your life and see beauty in it all or not. It's only you who experiences your perspective so it's entirely up to you.

>>8496965
>Solve your nihilism by reading more nihilism
genius

>>8496984
Or in other words "LOL JUST BECOME INSANE GO LIVE IN A CAVE IT IS A GOLDEN CASTLE IF YOU BRAINWASH YOURSELF XD" which is absolutely useless.

>>8492366
There's no escaping the truth, anon.

Once you realize the veracity of nihilism, there's no going back.

>>8496993
this. once you've accepted nihilism as the truth through logic and reasoning reasoning, the only thing that can get you to reject nihilism is having a powerful personal experience.

>>8492366
>>8496016
Unironically this. The problem is you want a God, an idea, or existence itself to come and lift you out of alienation and make your life seem better. You will never escape the nothingness after life, but you can change the insufferable way we live our lives and give meaning to it for yourself and the generations to come. Expel the demon of idealism.

>>8496993
Who is this cock commandant

>>8492366
Stirner. For real though.

Nothings ever mattered ever, realizing it doesn't mean shit. Be liberated by the knowledge that you can do exactly what you want. Cross-dress and smoke a cigarette, do heroin, or work hard to get a job you want, build something, help homeless people, write a book about how meaningless things are (like Ligotti does), whatever you want it doesn't matter.

Now, if you're thinking "I don't know what I want," then you are probably somewhat new to nihilism; there's always that initial shock period that everyone goes through where you become a bit depressed and nothing seems fun. It will pass though if you just wait it out.
Other problems might arise from your depression though and prolong it. The cool thing is that none of those problems even matter. Just be honest with yourself about why you're upset.

>>8497060
>that everyone goes through where you become a bit depressed and nothing seems fun. It will pass though if you just wait it out.
If you have money, if not you can kill yourself right away, you're fucked forever.

>>8497064
You can always lynch them

>>8496993
>>8497006
Yup, totally agree. Unless you have some kind of genuine personal experience or you're religious then there's no way out of nihilism.

>>8497077
yea that's what pulled me out of it, i had a personal mystic experience that forced me to believe in God

>>8497083
>>8497083
Tell me what it was I want a laugh

>>8497083
fair enough dude; I should've mentioned that personally I don't believe people actually have such experiences, or rather, they have them but there are completely natural explanations for them i.e. hallucinations or what have you

basically for me, there's no way out of nihilism

>>8497083
I've had mystical religious experiences as well and it was super intense (Jesus spoke to me through an empty chip bag in a 7-11 parking lot) but still nothing matters.

>>8496765
The Overman recognizes that the power to create value extends from himself, not from a life denying deity. Since God is dead, there will be no more prophets recognizing value from on high. The only chance humanity has is to ascribe value to human efforts and quit assuming value only comes from what is non human and mystical.

This is a very rudimentary description of the Overman that you could grasp if you even read a Wikipedia page but you can't because you don't read. Get off this board, kill yourself.

>>8497092
with that being your predisposition, i have no reason to.

>>8496021

Marxism isn't a static body of dogma, homey

>>8497109
>This guy

>>8497083
tell me what it was

i'm not the mean guy that wants to laugh

>>8497114
It was only a bit of banter, I'd like to hear it

>>8492377
I fell into the bottomless pit when I was seven years old. . You may think you've got out but only through insane self-deceptive logic. The only way out is death.

>>8497142
when i was 18, i started hitch hiking across the united states. in eugene, oregon, i gave a beer to someone who was shaking from withdrawals. i had an extra, they needed it.. i was playing music later that night on the street somewhere when they came by and told me to come look at a cat that was trapped in a window, down a couple blocks from where i was. so, i followed him. a block before the destination he was taking me to, some guy, who's belongings were all in a shopping cart, his wife was there too, stopped me, saying "hey, man, do i know you from the beginning of time?"

i stopped and heard him for a while, not necessarily listening because i was distracted, i told him i'd be back because i was on a mission to see a cat. the cat wasn't there, so i came back. he read me some poetry he wrote about jesus, asked me if i would agree i have a "prophetic vision" (of course i said yes, i was an egotistical nihilist) and then he asked me if i'd like for my vision to increase ten-fold. i hesitated and again said yes. so he pulled out some olive oil from his bag and put it on his palm, put his palm on my forehead and started praying in tongues.

immediately, i felt a weight lifted from my body, and i felt God's presence, which was the ultimate fulfillment and satisfaction that i spent my life looking for in various things.

then i transcended and God showed me that everybody, in spirit, is the same, that the world is but a speck in the whole of ultimate reality, everything is infinitely small and large. some of the things i have seen, i cannot express in words.. life is a paradox, the world has already ended in terms of the eternal, so to speak, everything has already happened, and is eternally happening.

something i forgot to add:

the experience brought me to my knees, i was crying like a baby, and i remember his wife saying "whooaaaa" and sobbing as well

Hegel

Meaning is literally impossible to escape, just by reading this or being able to perceive everything your mind is creating and absorbing meaning. You don't need to search for meaning in the world, it literally presents itself to you through every moment of your existence. You don't need to find a "higher" meaning to this, the process of generating new meaning at every moment is simply automatically bringing us towards this higher understanding.

This is why with each new piece of knowledge you gain, the rest is contextualized and you become better, each good book you read become better and better as you read newer and better books as each one is contextualized and you gain a deeper understanding of literature. It is the same in all disciplines.

Like this is some obvious shit, the only reason people don't see it is they are poisoned by this idea that the world can't simply be how it seems.

>>8497186

You're wrong and he's right.

The greatest trick of depression (and lets be real, thats what this thread is about) is that it convinces you that the world you inhabited before was a fantasy and that the pit is what's real. It's not.

>>8497257
>Meaning is literally impossible to escape, just by reading this or being able to perceive everything your mind is creating and absorbing meaning.


But it's still
inherently

Meaningless.

sahgkashdsajkhgskagjs doo ka job no e

Do you think I assigned a meaning to those words?

>>8497198
Smells like bullshit. Are you bullshitting us, anon?

>>8497291
you meant to ascribe meaninglessness to the words as a way to explain the possibility of the meaninglessness of life. the meaninglessness of the words therefore had a purpose, and you meant something by them.

>>8497300
for what purpose would i lie on an anonymous forum? why would i spend that much time typing out anything if i do not believe it to be an advantage to anyone? anyway, i am not capable of making that kind of thing up. you do not have to believe me, i understand, i didn't believe a lot of the things people told me about God before i believed either.

Luke 11:29 "And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet."

so it is with people who ask for proof, they do not receive proof, because they are not open to it when it is available.

>>8497291
Those letters still have "Meaning" just less so. They still represent sounds and are black and have shapes and such. There is also a meaning behind you writing them, etc.

Saying "Reality has no meaning" is a contradiction.

>>8497334
all right all right. i'd like to meet that chap with his powers one day.

>>8497354
it's not him, it's the holy spirit dawg

>>8497198
that olive oil sounds like dank acid

>>8497064
You misunderstood: I meant that you'll get over that fact that everything is meaningless. Not having money is a different issue.

>>8492366
For one, ignore most of the posts in this thread, which if heeded, would surely send you to Hell. Cases in point:
>>8492377
>>8492419
>>8492423
>>8495997
>>8496183
>>8496222
>>8496223
>>8496993
>>8497009
>>8497060
Two, realize that "nihilism" is simply a denial of basic facts of reality. It is a willful rejection of teleology (i.e. that things have ends towards which they are naturally inclined, more generally, that A regularly brings about B, as opposed to C, or D, or no effect at all) and essentialism (i.e. that things have natures or essences). I wouldn't even be able to communicate this were these not real, since even language betrays its inherent essentialism in the concepts it relies on, and the mind its inherent teleology in the intentionality it depends on to make sense of the world beyond itself. I urge you to read this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525

>>8497291
>Do you think I assigned a meaning to those words?
the shitposter is dead

>>8497460
>Hell

>>8497460
>Two, realize that "nihilism" is simply a denial of basic facts of reality.
You got one part right, the other one is off. Your "facts" and "basic" here suggest that moral realism is, by default, right, and so there are ethical facts. That begs the question. Moral realism is not the only game in town. Alongside nihilism, there are a myriad of other metaethical frameworks on the market that interpret any talk of right and wrong, good and bad, as meaningless. Nihilism is simply the metaethical thesis that there are no ethical facts. Your mention of teleology nor essentialism baffles me because none of those things are directly concerned with ethics.

>>8497460
>hell
>"nihilism" is simply a denial of basic facts of reality

>>8496011
Learned helplessness clearly points to outside factors, so it cannot be self-caused. Also your words clearly say "all suffering", and if that was a poor choice of words then alright, but suffering isn't just psychological.
Now, to think that it is purely self-caused seems to me to be some metaphysical solipsism nonsense.

>>8497460
Lad, I hope you realize that, if you act as a spokesman for some philosopher (such as Feser) while being highly philosophically unaware yourself, you're going to come across as an unbearable cunt, even if your post is as short as yours is now.

>>8497522
Not original poster, but clarification would be helpful. Nihilism is not only a metaethical thesis that there are no ethical facts, but that there are no objective normative reasons of *any* kind, i.e. no external reasons for action. But maybe that's what you meant by saying "ethical facts" rather than "moral facts," because obviously nihilism has to do with much more than morality.

Nihilism also obviously has to do with metaphysics. Nihilism is historicist about not only normative claims but also the validity of descriptivist claims in metaphysics. So nihilism forbids one from speaking as an absolutist about themes like God, even irrespective of normative and moral considerations. Nihilism is like what happens if you read the Critique of Pure Reason and believed it but skipped the last chapters on practical reason and also skipped all of Kant's moral and ethical writings. Negation of the possibility of metaphysics and ethics all at once.

>>8492366
Literally anything that has objective virtues, religion works too

>>8497708
Which is, frankly, why nihilism isn't very interesting to study. Metaphysics and normativity are the two interesting things to study and nihilism can't involve the study of those things. It'd be like listening to a sonata without melody or reading a novel without characters. What's the point?

>>8497708
Nihilism isn't logical positivism

>>8497460
>Hell
O I AM LAFFING
Even the chumps in your spook factory don't agree such a thing even exists.

>>8497460
>For one, ignore most of the posts in this thread, which if heeded, would surely send you to Hell.

Jordan B Peterson is boss but I literally can't reject nihilism

>>8497898
Find meaning in yourself, you fool.

>>8497902

I C A N ' T

>>8497522
As >>8497708 has already explained, I thought with all the talk about purposelessness and meaninglessness that what I meant by the term was obvious. Also ethical claims must follow metaphysical ones, because metaphysical claims are more fundamental to reality, and the only reason moral nihilism might seem like a viable notion to you is precisely because you've already adopted some form of skepticism towards teleology and essentialism. Because ultimately what anyone means by good or bad cannot be separated from a thing's purpose (teleology) and nature (essence). For example, what we mean by a "bad" basketball, say, a ball that has lost its grip or has deflated to the point that it no longer bounces, is only that it fails at its intended purpose. This holds for anything in the universe that possess teleology and it depends on real and objective facts about these things. Read the book! It goes into all of these things.

>>8497480
>>8497523
>>8497832
If the concept of Justice to you is so laughable, then you are braver men than I am! "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. Whatever a man sows, he will reap in return. The one who sows to please his flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; but the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life."

>>8497951
Infinite punishment for a finite trangression is not justice

>>8496355
bumping for this

>>8497957
It is, but not for reasons that can be distilled to a single shitpost.

Let us not forget however that the gift of Jesus Christ is perfectly free and easy, available to all, at all times!

>>8497978
Listen man, you have as much a chance of convincing me as I have of convincing you. I cannot believe that a mere belief in Christ is (or should be) enough to give someone's life meaning. If it helps you, that's fine. It doesn't do anything for me.

>>8498007
This isn't about some pragmatic use of religion, as a means to just to get through the day. Christianity is simply true, above and beyond any benefit it might confer. Any honest examination of the facts that form the basis of this religion proves as much.

Take as one example, the Shroud of Turin:
>Hundreds of burial shrouds are in existence, but no others to date are known to have an image, but only blood and decomposition stains. To the contrary, the shroud of Turin not only has a double body image (obverse and reverse) but there is much evidence that indicates that the image was caused by a burst of light/heat. To say the least, a burst of radiation from a dead body that appears to be that of Jesus is very intriguing evidence for the resurrection, especially in light of the historical evidence for this event. Second, scientific investigation reveals that there is no decomposition on the shroud, meaning that, in a Middle Eastern environment, the body did not remain in the cloth for more than a very few days. That the body probably identified as that of Jesus did not decompose in this cloth adds to the intrigue. However, some may object that there are several possible reasons why a body might have been unwrapped. This is why the third evidence is so strong, since the pathologists examining the shroud found that the man was not unwrapped. The cloth contacted the body and the blood was transmitted directly to it, becoming somewhat attached. Separation in such conditions would involve dislodging a number of dried blood clots and disrupting the dried borders of the stains. However, the blood clots on the shroud are not only intact, being visible in almost every wound, but the borders of the wounds are also uninterrupted. These three points are quite evidential even when taken by themselves. But when combined, the evidence is much stronger.
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Evangelical_Theological_Soc/Habermas_JETS_Shroud-of-Turin-and-significance.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH8xQZPjSXE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRB16BARvz0

>>8498041
But it isn't solely about proof, either, or not as most frame the term:
"In the parable of the Sower and the Seed, Jesus described the soil burst into life and fruitfulness upon receiving the seed: But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop. A "good heart" He said...A heart that seeks to be open to others, that gives the other person the 'benefit of the doubt', that makes decisions about witnesses based upon their character and integrity--not gullible, but not mistrustful to the extreme either.

The skeptical heart (as opposed to the skeptical mind) is the opposite--it starts with mistrust of fellow human beings (except itself, for some strange reason) and requires positive reasons to begin trusting a fellow's testimony. This, of course, is the theory--in practice it accepts tons of data from teachers, fellow skeptics, etc., often without proof of any kind. The skeptical heart gives up too easily, when difficulties in a system emerge. It is quick to shout 'inconsistency' without being gracious enough to give the other person an opportunity to demonstrate consistency or give an answer. Positions are too often evaluated on the basis of superficial evaluations and snap judgments.

Why should we try to give others the "benefit of the doubt"? Why should we seek to start out by trusting someone? Why should we give them a hearing when they try to explain difficulties in their system? Simply because that is how we want others to treat us... The Golden Rule is treasured everywhere, and Jesus' version is the most aggressive in the world--"Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6.31) Jesus' words in Matt 7.2 are very sobering: For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

>>8498052
He is available--but we must want to find Him...He hides from those who would strap electrodes on Him, and try to dissect Him, and try to study Him, and to treat him like a thing--just like we would withdraw...His famous statement in Jeremiah 29.13: You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. was reiterated by Jesus in Luke 11.9f: "So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened..

If you REALLY want to know God--as a person, not a thing--and approach Him with an open and generous attitude, He will show His heart to you. He will probably use a variety of communication methods--the bible, true disciples of Jesus, intuition, experiences of awe, bizarre coincidence, stories from others, music and beauty--but He is God, and can reveal His heart and thoughts to you--without disclosing Himself to those who are NOT open or ready."
http://christianthinktank.com/justlook.html

>>8498041
>Christianity is simply true,

>>8496355
>>8497961
He only addresses Stirner in passing (he had planned to write an entire essay about Stirner, but after becoming a monk he just wrote spiritual material), but he deals pretty soundly with his philosophy in the broad.

>christian starts proselytizing

it was a good thread

>>8498220
How accurate is he when he does touch on him briefly? Does he manage to avoid the common mistake of thinking egoists have to be psychopaths?

>>8492402
PURE IDEOLOGY
U
R
E

I
D
E
O
L
O
G
Y

>>8498261
He's an anti-modernist, he's not interested in using modernist terms like that to category people.

>>8492408
Kierkegaard never says this, it is your inference

>>8498302
>to category people

>>8496786
Holy crap that was bi to read.

>>8498312
*categorize

He sees Stirner's philosophy large driven by a destructive impulse, the same the iconoclasts had or ISIS has. Except Stirner's agenda is not destruction of philosophical icons as "idolatrous", he is concerned with destroying metaphysical icons because he sees them as "idolatrous," and impairing the worship of the self.

>>8498335
Except Stirner's agenda is not destruction of *physical icons

>>8497978
>>8498041
>>8498052
>>8498055
is this nigga serious?

>>8498221
>looking for answer to nihilism outside christianity
everyone knows christianity is the ultimate conclusion to philosophy

>>8498307
Well not in those precise words maybe but that is all over the fucking place in Koerkegaard. Aristotle actually also says this explicitly in the first chapter of Metaphysics Book B. He says impasses (aporia, i.e. stumbling blocks and doubt and confusion) are essential to understanding. His aporias might not have been as deep or troubling as those noticed by Pascal or the Kierk, but it's an idea that's been with us since the dawn of philosophy.

>>8498335
Stirner doesn't even advocate self-worship, he sees it as the fundamental state of being that is obfuscated by adherence to Spooks. He doesn't care what you do or don't do, he just doesn't feel compelled himself to be swayed by fraudulent ideals and arbitrary categories

>>8498342
Why didn't God in his infinite power and wisdom not explain to the Jews that he was a Triune God and to expect his actual physical incarnation?

>>8498307
Descartes does

>>8498350
Aristotle absolutely does say that, Kierkegaard never does. He was all about the abyssal impasse between philosophical doubt and the spiritual leap. It is not necessary to doubt everything before having faith, Kierk actually expresses a deep longing for a state of being where he did not have to doubt everything so much

>>8498358
congrats on watching a 5 minute youtube video on Descartes

>>8498342
Christianity is not a philosophy though, it is a religion.
i have no idea how you have come to the conclusion YOUR ideas and philosophies about the world are forever correct and infallible when there are so many other ways to look at things.

>>8498352
And an icon is not venerated for itself, but as a reflection. Which is what Stirner sees metaphysical ideas as being, merely expressions of egoism. But he sees people as confusing this, and venerating the ideas for themselves, not seeing what they are, and thus he understands them as idols, things that are venerated for themselves instead of as a medium for something they reflect.

Stirner does care what you do, he desires to destroy spooks, because he says this gives him pleasure, and he doesn't care if it makes the world burn.

>>8498372
The sharp the distinction between philosophy and religion is extremely modernist. Prior to modernism (at least among the Orthodox), philosophy largely overlapped with what we see as "theology" today. "Theology", among the Byzantines, meant the art of praying.

>>8498372
i wouldn't have chosen such a difficult truth to live out if it were up to me. the fact is that christianity is true. also, one could hardly call it religion or philosophy, as it is truth, and it is God reaching to man instead of vice versa

>>8498379
That is, "theology" was a more exclusive term. Maximos the Confessor, for instance, was called a "philosopher". Theology was strictly directly experience of the divine, "knowing God." It was a mystical term, not an academic one. All academic "theology", back then, was called philosophy.

i can see why people abandoned this thread...

>>8498302
>He's an anti-modernist, he's not interested in using modernist terms like that to category people.

well what term would be appropriate?

>>8498335

>He sees Stirner's philosophy large driven by a destructive impulse, the same the iconoclasts had or ISIS has. Except Stirner's agenda is not destruction of philosophical icons as "idolatrous", he is concerned with destroying metaphysical icons because he sees them as "idolatrous," and impairing the worship of the self.

There are a few confusions here firstly worshiping yourself under his understanding is kind of impossible as you cant place yourself above yourself. Secondly unlike the inconoclasts or ISIS he does not selectively target a spook for the purpose of replacing them with his own.

Does the author view the destructive impulse as inherently negative>


>>8498377
To clarify that's not an entirely accurate quote/representation. In that part hes going on about how he published his work for no other reason than securing an existence for his ideas and thoughts rather than a destruction of all spooks. Hence why his work despite biting isn't actually prescriptive.

>>8498410
I can't see why you feel the need to shitpost in it

>>8498379
>extremely modernist

I see that term around a lot to respond to claims, what is actually meant by this and is it being used correctly?

>>8498342
Christianity is a dying worldview that finds no intellectual sustenance. Contemporary philosophy and science have given such heavy evidence and strong reasoning in favor of metaphysical naturalism that no worldview that rejects it can hope to stand.

>>8498422
>well what term would be appropriate?
He doesn't see Stirner as psychological of genetically aberrant, if that is what you are getting at. He just thinks his philosophy is wrong and destructive. But he also sees Stirner are a logical reaction against the incoherence of "Realism" ("Realism" is his term for the materialist reaction against the Enlightenment's fixation on secular metaphysics, Marx is an example of a "Realist")

>There are a few confusions here firstly worshiping yourself under his understanding is kind of impossible as you cant place yourself above yourself.
You're presuming worship of self means to place the self above the self. That's not actually the case. "Worship" here is just to ascribe worth (the actual etymology of the word), relative to other things. By Stirner's standard, all things are done for the sake of the self, which, regardless of what you believe, if worship in practice.

>Does the author view the destructive impulse as inherently negative>
He views "Destructivism" as inherently negative. Destructivism is a tendency largely driven by the impulse to destroy (which Stirner is, since he says it gives him pleasure to destroy spooks, although as far as the world burning, Stirner doesn't derive pleasure from that, he just says he doesn't care).

> In that part hes going on about how he published his work for no other reason than securing an existence for his ideas and thoughts rather than a destruction of all spooks
But his though it mainly about destroying spooks. And he does not just wish to secure his thought's existence, he wishes to propagate his thought because that gives him pleasure.

>>8498442
I mean the idea that philosophy is a secular endeavor is totally foreign to both ancient and Medieval thought. God, or gods, was a major concern for most philosophy prior to that.

>>8492366
all i have on this topic

>>8498446
everyone speaks of this so called evidence, but no one actually shows me anything that can disprove the existence of God, because it isn't possible.

>>8498453
>He doesn't see Stirner as psychological of genetically aberrant, if that is what you are getting at. He just thinks his philosophy is wrong and destructive. But he also sees Stirner are a logical reaction against the incoherence of "Realism" ("Realism" is his term for the materialist reaction against the Enlightenment's fixation on secular metaphysics, Marx is an example of a "Realist")

I get you now.

>You're presuming worship of self means to place the self above the self. That's not actually the case. "Worship" here is just to ascribe worth (the actual etymology of the word), relative to other things. By Stirner's standard, all things are done for the sake of the self, which, regardless of what you believe, if worship in practice.

I was using the definition Stirner used in his earlier essays. Doesnt this definition mean that every value judgment is a form of worship then?

Is there a reason why Stirners conception of it should be rejected?

Also was my point regarding ISIS correct?

>He views "Destructivism" as inherently negative. Destructivism is a tendency largely driven by the impulse to destroy

But isnt it destruction in the way that pulling out weeds or breaking chains is destructive?

>which Stirner is, since he says it gives him pleasure to destroy spooks, although as far as the world burning, Stirner doesn't derive pleasure from that, he just says he doesn't care).

Do you have a source on that? Whilst Stirner might be for destroying the world as a spook seeing the world itself go up in flames seems like something that would not be conducive to his personal interests.

>But his though it mainly about destroying spooks.

Only for himself which is a seperate issue from others destroying spooks.

And he does not just wish to secure his thought's existence, he wishes to propagate his thought because that gives him pleasure.

>Let us choose another convenient example. I see how men are fretted in dark superstition by a swarm of ghosts. If to the extent of my powers I let a bit of daylight fall in on the nocturnal spookery, is it perchance because love to you inspires this in me? Do I write out of love to men? No, I write because I want to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world; and, even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive you of your rest and your peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations springing up from this seed of thought — I would nevertheless scatter it. Do with it what you will and can, that is your affair and does not trouble me. You will perhaps have only trouble, combat, and death from it, very few will draw joy from it.

> But not only not for your sake, not even for truth’s sake either do I speak out what I think. No —

I sing as the bird sings

That on the bough alights;

The song that from me springs

Is pay that well requites.

I sing because — I am a singer. But I use[gebrauche] you for it because I — need [brauche] ears.

>>8498461
Is that correct? Philosophy used to be about natural sciences but we wouldnt say that modern philosophy is wrong because it no longer has such a focus

>>8498477
The evidential argument from evil is quite devastating evidence against Christian theism. Christian answers to this argument, such as skeptical theism, are deeply flawed and ultimately untenable.

>>8498472
Nihilists can still "care about things" you dipshit.

>>8498489
free will is a pretty simple concept though, as is the fall of man

>>8498500
Confirmed for never having read about the evidential argument from evil.

>>8498488
The only difference between natural philosophy (philosophy concerned with things like biology, medicine and physics) and modern science, is that modern science is much more exclusive in method, whereas natural philosophy is an umbrella term for a ton of methods. It would not be inaccurate to say science is natural philosophy, it would just be imprecise.

>>8498446
You are clueless. Naturalism destroys everything in its path, even philosophy and science as genuine intellectual pursuits. If there is only directionless matter then everything from truth to free-will are mere illusions. That so-called "rationalists" don't see this outcome speaks more to either intellectual dishonesty or blind hubris.

>>8498512
While Christians regularly claim that naturalism makes knowledge impossible, no philosopher has ever shown this to be the case.

>>8498508
Which seems to be the case with theology in that it branches off with questions regarding revelation and legitimacy of tradition and the like.

Not seprating them seems as if it would hit the same problesm with natural philosophy

>>8498504
>checkmate, christians
explain logically why the concept of free will is not enough to explain why evil exists..?
>>8498526
wisdom is impossible without God, plenty of pagans KNOW things but they have no knowledge of anything higher than the material, which is a small box indeed

>>8498512
Does that mean it must be false because its answers are ugly?

>>8498538
What about the Hindus and Taoists they dont seem to be limited to the material.

>>8498538
>>8498504
also, while you're at it, explain what evil is.

>>8498537
Most Orthodox theology is concerned with the appropriate mindset and lifestyle of a Christian, and how to cultivate it, not with polemics.

>>8498542
Which is why it would be more precise to label it as theology instead of just philosophy for the reasons you raised earlier

>>8498512
Science negated the metaphysical principles of naturalism back when thermodynamics was first getting underway. Ever since then physicists have stopped appealing to action and causality as properties of substances. Instead physicists now treat of the actions and energies of whole systems, from a holistic perspective. When you read the way that people within thermodynamics or later developments lile quantum physics, you can tell immediately that this physics is incompatible with naturalism.

Tl;dr, naturalists are clearly not physicists or at least not people who have thought deeply about any varieties of physics beginning with Hamiltonian mechanics.

>>8498546
What should Christian philosophy not be philosophy just because it's Christian?

Why is even the research of Church tradition considered philosophy, but arguing about the source and legitimacy of secular traditions (as Foucault did), considered philosophy?

>>8498512
Oh also, thermodynamics shows how emergence pronciples of complex aggregate systems can give rise to entities that are ontologically distinct in scope and kind from their moving parts. In other words ethics is compatible with the tiny moving parts you noted. Just to throw anothing piece into the puzzle of the huge mass of problems about trying to be a naturalist in a world after thermodynamics

>>8498551
Foucault is just an anthropologist and historicist, not a philosopher.

>>8498560
That doesn't answer about Christian philosophy in general. Why are works on Christian morality, for instance, not philosophy, but works on secular morality are?

Foucault is classed as a philosopher, not an historian or anthropologist.

>>8498551
Did you forget your post in >>8498508 we would use these terms because

>It would not be inaccurate to say science is natural philosophy, it would just be imprecise.

Precision is the key idea here.

>>8498538
>explain logically

Again ignoring what the evidential argument from evil. The free will defense was postulated as a way to avoid the deductive (or logical) argument from evil, it can only be used to argue that it's not "impossible", but NOT unlikely, that theism and evil can coexist. The evidential argument from evil ys by its nature an inductive/probabilistic argument, thus the free will defense doesn't apply.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-evi/

More fatally, the free will defense cannot be used to explain away natural evil.

>>8498540

"Evil", in this case, is a convenient term used to describe instances like pointless suffering, that under the framework of moral realism are evil.

>>8498484
Bumping for this

>>8498538
>wisdom is impossible without God

This is a statement, not an argument

>>8498569
Well it's very imprecise to class in works on how to cultivate humility, with works on the Unmoved Mover (which is called "philosophy" when done by Aristotle, but "theology" which done by Aquinas, when really all Aquinas is doing it repeating Aristotle).

>>8498547
I can't parse an argument from this post

>>8498495
is this one of those arguments where you go 'nuh uh i really meant moral nihilism'

>>8498582
>Well it's very imprecise to class in works on how to cultivate humility, with works on the Unmoved Mover (which is called "philosophy" when done by Aristotle, but "theology" which done by Aquinas, when really all Aquinas is doing it repeating Aristotle).

It is still more precise than lumping everything from investigations gravity to the ontology of Christ under one banner.

It simmilar to how BF Skinner the famed psychologist is known simply as that despite his rather important political writings
>hen really all Aquinas is doing it repeating Aristotle).

I understand the point you are trying to make but this is hyperbole.

>>8498603
It's not precise. While some theology, the abstract arguments mainly, are about Christ's ontology, most Orthodox theology is stuff like this

>Attachment either to some particular relative or to strangers is dangerous. Little by little it can entice us back to the world, and completely quench the fire of our contrition. It is impossible to look at the sky with one eye and at the earth with the other, and it is equally impossible for anyone not to expose his soul to danger who has not separated himself completely, both in thought and body, from his own relatives and from others.

>>8498624
In fact, the ontological, abstract theology of Orthodox, is as much tied to lived experience and Heidegger's and Hegel's abstract discourses on Being.

>>8498572
what makes suffering evil? who is to say anything is unnecessary?

the existence of evil is also the most significant proof of God, the fact that we can differentiate good and evil means that we have some sort of standard, and if there is no God, there is no standard.

>>8498624
Take a look at what I wrote
"It is still ****more***** precise"
Not
it ***is*** precise.

>>8498643
It's not precise at all, it's totally arbitrary and unhelpful. Saying there is no such thing as religious philosophy is to suggest religion is not philosophical.

>>8498656
>It's not precise at all, it's totally arbitrary and unhelpful. Saying there is no such thing as religious philosophy is to suggest religion is not philosophical.

I didnt say there was no such thing as religious philosophy only that we call that theology for the sake of precision.

I again encourage you to read your early post on the matter

>>8498640
>what makes suffering evil?

Pointless suffering is "evil" according to any tenable moral realist view.

>who is to say anything is unnecessary?

Pointless evil = evil that doesn't serve any highet good. Read the argument.

>the existence of evil is also the most significant proof of God,

Two points. First, the claim is absolutely false. While Christians love to claim that moral realism requires theism, no Christian philosopher has ever shown this to be the case. In fact, this view is largely rejected among professional philosophers.

Second, the argument itself doesn't presuppose moral realism, as it simply defines as evil instances that moral realists accept as evil. Because the Christian is necessarily a moral realism, he is forced to accept the existence of evil. However, the atheist using the argument can perfectly be a moral anti-realist, in the same way the atheist doesn't believe in the existence of hell when invoking the problem of hell; the point of the argument is that the Christian must face a contradiction in what he believes.

>>8498661
How is grouping it into theology more precise? It makes the term "theology" much less precise. It's also harmful because it excludes religion from the philosophical dialogue.

>>8498670
By the way, it's also a double-standard, since pagan philosophy is not grouped into with theology, but Abrahamic philosophy is.

>>8498664
but there is no contradiction.

>>8498685
Again with this? Read the argument. The argument is about evidence and probability, not about logical contradiction.

By contradiction I was referring to the problem of hell.

>>8498696
i will be honest, i'm not going to read that entire essay you linked me to tonight. maybe another time, but i am tired, and ill as well, my eyes are burning and i can't pop my ears.

"probability" is no argument at all. God transcends all understanding. existence itself is an illogical occurrence; non-existence is the natural conclusion to philosophy, yet here we are. so we live in a paradox, and the paradox is what defines christianity's view on the material world, in a sense, God is a paradox one must "leap" over to, in order to gain understanding of the nature of existence.

>>8498696
Could you explain to me what the "problem of hell" is?

>>8498731
>"probability" is no argument at all.

Of course it is. Evidence itself is tacitly based on probability, and the whole argument revolved around evidence, and the weight behind it. You're spouting nonsense.

>God transcends all understanding. existence itself is an illogical occurrence; non-existence is the natural conclusion to philosophy, yet here we are.

What a bunch of gibberish.

>i will be honest, i'm not going to read that entire essay you linked me to tonight.

Why participate in a discussion you don't even know what is about? And the article isn't even long, you're just embarrassingly lazy (or a liar).

>>8498664
Are you an empiricist?

>>8498738
Just google it

>>8498763
Not sure how that applies to the Orthodox conception of hell.

>>8498754
No.

>>8498765
Elaborate

>>8498670
Are you really the same person who made that post I keep linking to?

>>8498679
>By the way, it's also a double-standard, since pagan philosophy is not grouped into with theology, but Abrahamic philosophy is.

It is and one which should be addressed.

>>8498484
Bumping again for an answer on this

>>8498769
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_hell#Basic_Orthodox_teachings_on_hell

>>8498769
NTA but Ortho hell is just people rejecting God and suffering because have to continue to reject it in the afterlife hence for them 100% voluntary

>>8498766
Empiricism is life

>>8498769
Dostoevsky's summed it up well in Notes from Underground

"I repeat to you for the hundredth time, there is only one case, one only, when man may purposely, consciously wish for himself even the harmful, the stupid, even what is stupidest of all: namely, so as *to have the right* to wish for himself even what is stupidest of all and not be bound by an obligation to wish for himself only what is intelligent."

The Underground Man is, in a way, an allegory for fell, since he's cognate with the hell-bound man that Satan describes in The Brothers Karamazov.

>>8496955
"Signs imply ways of living, possibilities of existence, they are the symptoms of an overflowing (jaillissante) or exhausted (épuisée) life. But an artist cannot be content with an exhausted life, nor with a personal life. One does not write with one's ego, one's memory, and one's illnesses. In the act of writing there's an attempt to make life something more personal, to liberate life from what imprisons it.There is a profound link between signs, the event, life, and vitalism. It is the power of nonorganic life, that which can be found in a line of a drawing, a line of writing, a line of music. It is organisms that die, not life. There is no work of art that does not indicate an opening for life, a path between the cracks. Everything I have written has been vitalistic, at least I hope so, and constitutes a theory of signs and the event."

You have to listen to those words, they can echo for a long time

>>8498753
>what a bunch of gibberish
we are literally in a thread about nihilism, and i am expressing that the world cannot logically exist. explain to me logically how existence is natural.

your third point is ad hominem, there is no reason for me to lie, when i have told the truth in saying i'm not reading that article.. i have heard plenty of people speak about the problem of evil. this is nothing new to me, it's just that when people speak of the problem of evil they are referring to doctrine, not probability.

if there is any probability of God at all, He must exist, being an all-powerful transcendent diety, if He exists in any imagined paradigm, He must exist in this one.

>>8498789
>>8498792

This is similar to the "the gates of hell are locked from the inside" view, namely that people suffer not because they are damned by God, but because they willingly and continuously reject Him.

The problem with this view is that hell (whatever you define it as) is eternal, therefore the orthodox has to believe every unbeliever rejects God eternally, no exceptions, or that God doesn't give the unbeliever another chance. I find the former view to be implausible, and the latter doesn't avoid the problem of hell.

>>8498812
The Orthodox don't claim to know if hell is permanent, although even if it's not, you certainly aren't going to get out unless you actively want to.

Hell is heaven (Ephesians 6:12). God's energies are sometimes described as light (as when radiating out of people like Moses), or as fire (Hebrews 12:29) (God's essence as opposed to his energies is like the distinction between a flame's combustion and a flame's brilliance). How you experience these energies depends on your relationship with them. We sometimes call them "love", other times "wrath," although in fact God does not experience emotions (except through the incarnation of the Logos). We experience God's energies as an emotion, but God doesn't experience God's energies as an emotion. Similarly, a certain kind of music can be torture or bliss, depending on the person .

>>8498812
eternity is not bound by the laws of time, once the self is detached from the finite it is too late to change what is eternally decided, because that's how it was, is, and will be infinitely.

>>8498811
>explain to me logically how existence is natural.

Explain how it isn't.

>this is nothing new to me

It clearly is. Rowe's evidential argument from evil is an academic argument that you almost certainly haven't heard before. The fact that you refuse to read about it maks you completely unaware of what's being discussed.

>if there is any probability of God at all, He must exist, being an all-powerful transcendent diety, if He exists in any imagined paradigm, He must exist in this one.

Such a shit argument. No wonder nobody takes ontological arguments seriously.

>>8498824
You can make decisions within eternity, or else Satan couldn't have rebelled.

>>8498820
Claiming that hell isn't permanent is indeed a viable way to avoid the problem of hell. However this view faces scriptural problems.

>>8498824

>eternity is not bound by the laws of time

This doesn't sound like a meaningful statement to me.

>>8492366
better never to have been by david benatar

>>8498832
everything dies. life is just a passing experience, the material world will pass away and we will see it was never there.

>>8498841
john 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

the devil has always been evil

>>8498849
I can't tell if you are serious or not.

>>8498842
>Claiming that hell isn't permanent is indeed a viable way to avoid the problem of hell. However this view faces scriptural problems.
Nobody said hell isn't permanent, only we don't know if it is. Since for the Orthodox, heaven and hell are the same. The fire of hell and the light of heaven are ontologically identical, .in we say right before Communion, in a prayer, Lord, let your fire not burn me, but cleanse me. So....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGpsXuMvApo

>>8498852
So God created him innately evil?

>>8498854
>Nobody said hell isn't permanent

Hell is either permanent or it isn't. If it is, the problem of hell applies. If it isn't, my post still applies.

You already know the answer.

>>8498852
How did God decide to create the universe if decisions cannot occur in eternity?

>>8498861
Hell is permanent, but what I'm saying is, there is no innate difference between heaven and hell. They are the same. The only difference is how you experience it. It's like I said, with music.

>>8498866
God doesn't make decisions, his plan was an is always there. The universe is finite because it was created within temporal parameters.

>>8498881
Why can't those in "hell" change their minds?

>>8498887
We never said they couldn't.

>>8498883
So, God doesn't has free will? It wouldn't have been possible for Him to not create the universe?

>>8498889
So, those in "hell" can change their minds, repent and "go" to "heaven"?

>>8498892
God just doesn't have a gnomic will.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomic_will

>>8498897
We don't know.

The Holy Bible (King James Version)

>>8498484
Bump for this

>>8498484
>Is there a reason why Stirners conception of it should be rejected?
If you're a Christian, yeah.

>Also was my point regarding ISIS correct?
No, since it's really not the point. Stirner's cause is what he sees as not a spook, and ISIS's cause is what they see as not an idol. Different ideologies, but there is some overlap.

>But isnt it destruction in the way that pulling out weeds or breaking chains is destructive?
This is what ISIS would say too.

We're not talking about weeds, we're talking about the skeleton of culture.

>Do you have a source on that?
You just quoted it yourself
"I write because I want to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world; and, even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive you of your rest and your peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations springing up from this seed of thought — I would nevertheless scatter it. "

>Only for himself
No, for everyone, since that gives him pleasure.

The best anti-nihilistic philosophy is love and empathy. To love oneself and to fear death is to attribute value to yourself in relation to the world. There are many ways to defeat nihilism.

Love, hedonism, helping others, working to see your work immortalized or be enjoyed and becoming an influence to others, the belief in a higher power in which everything has a purpose.
These are probably the only ways to overcome nihilism, but it doesn't defeat nihilism. No one can defeat nihilism because no person or concept can defeat death.

Love is only as strong as its two sides that hold it together.
Love is an illusion, a misunderstanding.
Mutual love is a mutual misunderstanding of being mutually loved. And an engagement is a vow to not wake up for your whole life from that misunderstanding.

Hedonism is utterly empty. The truth is, there is only one important question (as Tolstoy would no doubt agree), and that is the question of the existence of God. If God exists, then there is salvation, and life has meaning and everything is wonderful, and then there's no place for hedonism since it is anti-christian (or insert other religion here). But if God doesn't exist, we can default to hedonism since it is easy and fun, but ultimately, it would be much better to be a saint in a universe with God. Basically, hedonism sucks, but if there's no God, it's all we have.

Helping others is only gratifying if you think it helps. But it never lasts.

As for having your work immortalized, nothing lasts forever, nothing stands the test of time. Look on my work and despair, with nothing remaining.

All we are left with is nihilism. Embrace it but never let it destroy you. Just dive into hedonism and never look back. All others involve illusions.

>>8498955
>If you're a Christian, yeah.

Can you explain how? is East Orthodox Christianity's definition of worship the only challenge to his definition.

>No, since it's really not the point. Stirner's cause is what he sees as not a spook, and ISIS's cause is what they see as not an idol. Different ideologies, but there is some overlap.

Barley any overlap really Stirners cause is only his own the members of ISIS cause would generally be those dictated to them by dogma and force their ideology on others. The only reason to draw such a comparison would be to slander Stirner by comparison.

If you want to to use a religious comparison Jesus would be more apt as he pursued his life not by ideology but by his own will and interest. Jesus is probably one of the purest egoists there can be.

>This is what ISIS would say too.
Its also what Jesus would say regarding the money lenders and the worldly possessions of the wealthy youth.

>We're not talking about weeds, we're talking about the skeleton of culture.

As was the dogmatic rule of the pharisees and the Paganism of Rome.

The spooks regarding rationality and liberalism have done far more damage to the planet and society than nilhism could ever do.

>You just quoted it yourself
Nothing in that quote has anything to do with

"which Stirner is, since he says it gives him pleasure to destroy spooks, although as far as the world burning, Stirner doesn't derive pleasure from that, he just says he doesn't care"

Show me where Stirner says or implies he wouldnt care for the destruction of the material world or that he gets pleasure from destroying spooks.

>No, for everyone, since that gives him pleasure.

Did you not read past the first line of the quote I provided. He literally writes that he only writes to procure his thoughts an existence in the world and does not care what is done with it.

He even had a poem there

>But not only not for your sake, not even for truth’s sake either do I speak out what I think. No —

I sing as the bird sings
That on the bough alights;
The song that from me springs
Is pay that well requites.
I sing because — I am a singer. But I use[gebrauche] you for it because I — need [brauche] ears.

Far from proving your point that he does it to destroy all spooks because it gives him pleasure it states the opposite.

We are nothing but eyes and ears to him

Have you based your knowledge of Stirner on 4chan and the references in that book on Nihlism?

>>8495915
>there are people who aren't nihilists solely because they think it's 'cringey'

If everything is meaningless, as nihilism supposes, then you have to define what meaning is in the first place so can explain how something can be devoid of meaning. But, if you can define what meaning is then that means it means something so therefore everything is not meaningless because meaning has meaning.

Checkmate, nihilists. There's some anti-nihilist philosophy for you.

>>8492366
Nietzsche.

His philosophy in many ways is a response to Schopenhauer, who is an exemplary antinatalist and pessimist in philosophy.

With Nietzsche's philosophy, and his value-system, "nihilism" is overcome, a non-problem. Life gets properly valued, finally.

Nietzsche is such a branch off from all the other philosophers because he's not just a shut-in like the others. He was a bit of a recluse, obviously, you have to be to read and write as much as he did. But all the other guys were mainly inspired by who they read... other recluses, other shut-ins. Nietzsche's inspiration was the outdoors, the world, people with opposite perspectives of his, idols and revolutionaries like Wagner... he may have criticized Wagner in the end but he had his priorities straight, they weren't corrupted by his introverted nature.

>>8499145
Meaning doesn't have to exist for it not to exist

>>8492403
Pretty much, yeah. Nietzsche himself knew how much of a problem nihilism is, and he gave solution for it. You have given up the burden of the camel and you are now a lion. Become a child. (only zarathustra kids will remember!)

>>8492408
>You need to doubt everything before you can believe again -- this is natural.
Including nihilism.

>>8499477
Meaning has meaning is what he said.

Conversely, if everything is meaningless then so is lack of meaning.

>>8492476
MAAAA NIGGA, MEANING UP IN THIS BITCH

>>8497978
This is some high level shitposting

>>8498052
But the heart of the christian is just as closed or as open as the skeptic. The only difference is that the Christian is closes their heart and trust to anything and everything which would contradict thier particular religious dogma whilst the fedora closes their heart to any and everything that contradicts their materialism.

Now whilst they might have a very open heart within a narrow specturm - ie varities of liberalism or ways to love others outside of those narrow bounds it disappears.

The kind of people who would say they are open hearted because they read the NT once when they were young or the God Delusion or the quran ect but nothing more whilst expecting others to study quality sources and engage in practice for their own creed

>ctrl +f
>define nihilism
>define meaning
>0 results
>269 posts
>read nietzsche bruh its good
Intellectual quagmire.

>>8492366
try existentialism boii

>>8499126
well there are particular factors that make a thing cringe and there is a good reason for why cringe is considered a vice.

>>8499145
>then you have to define what meaning is in the first place so can explain how something can be devoid of meaning
That's quite ironic, because this normative assertion that you're pushing down our throats presupposes that there is meaning (ethical, at least) in the first place and therefore you're merely begging the question, my sweet, tender, weeaboo person.

Nobody has to explain anybody anything.

>>8499757
there is a feeling of meaning that can manifest itself in the human consciousness and exist.

>>8499768
Could you repeat that again, but this time in English?

>>8497708
>metaethical thesis that there are no ethical facts, but that there are no objective normative reasons of *any* kind
Any normative reason, interpreted in a suitable logico-deontic framework that admits such predicates as "is good", "is bad", "should", "ought", etcetera as meaningful, is committing to the claim that what is now being uttered is a fact, and so, has a definite truth-value. In other words, all normative claims are ethical claims, and vice versa. Though "You ought to do P" expressed what one should do directly, "P is wrong" does that indirectly. I don't distinguish between "shoulds" and "oughts" on one hand, and "rights" and "wrongs" on the other.

>that's what you meant by saying "ethical facts" rather than "moral facts,"
Analytic philosophy that I have been exposed to take these to be equivalent; similarly, "Ethics" and "Moral Philosophy" denote the same branch of Philosophy.

>obviously nihilism has to do with much more than morality.
Sure, you can extend the notion of nihilism to the point that you can sensibly deny non-ethical facts, too, but I don't think, at least in the context of this thread and OP's content especially, that this is *the* understanding most ITT are operating with. But if you're right, then your "Negation of the possibility of metaphysics and ethics all at once." is of course apt here.

>>8497708
>metaethical thesis that there are no ethical facts, but that there are no objective normative reasons of *any* kind
Any normative reason, interpreted in a suitable logico-deontic framework that admits such predicates as "is good", "is bad", "should", "ought", etcetera as meaningful, is committing to the claim that what is now being uttered is a fact, and so, has a definite truth-value. In other words, all normative claims are ethical claims, and vice versa. Though "You ought to do P" expresses what one should do directly, "P is wrong" does that indirectly. I don't distinguish between "shoulds" and "oughts" on one hand, and "rights" and "wrongs" on the other.

>that's what you meant by saying "ethical facts" rather than "moral facts,"
Analytic philosophy that I have been exposed to take these to be equivalent; similarly, "Ethics" and "Moral Philosophy" denote the same branch of Philosophy.

>obviously nihilism has to do with much more than morality.
Sure, you can extend the notion of nihilism to the point that you can sensibly deny non-ethical facts, too, but I don't think, at least in the context of this thread and OP's content especially, that this is *the* understanding most ITT are operating with. But if you're right, then your "Negation of the possibility of metaphysics and ethics all at once." is of course apt here.

>>8499802
DONG DING.

>>8499770
sorry I'm not speaking Stupid

I'd argue you don't, once you hit Nihilism you never leave.
However this is a good thing since you return to basics, it's as you return to a baby but with the self awareness of a adult - it's liberating in a way

Much like after being NEET for a long time you appreicate a job, once you hit Nihilism (aka rock bottom) the path you create for yourself, or follow if that's your thing, should be one that generates happiness - after all you're the only one driving it forward

Have a chart i found here a long time ago too

>>8499117
Just a bump for this in case that anon comes back

>>8499117
>>8498955
>>Is there a reason why Stirners conception of it should be rejected?
>If you're a Christian, yeah.
>Can you explain how? is East Orthodox Christianity's definition of worship the only challenge to his definition.

I'm a completely different guy, but to worship God and do what God wants you to do isn't even a spook if you believe in God.

The concept of God is only a spook if you think God is man made. Think about what Stirner would do if he wanted to take money from a cash register that is left unattended: He would just simply take it. Now imagine a police officer is standing right near by: He wouldn't take it, not because he believes he is spooked by morality, but because a police officer would arrest him; that being a very real non-spook reason to not steal at that moment.

Now if you believe there is an omnipresent being who will judge you when you die, to do what he wants would be absolutely in your best interest. Anarchists, edgy teens, people doing civil disobedience etc. are all spooks. If you think understanding that morality is meaningless means you can't do things that are moral on principal, then you are spooked. Of course Stirner knew this and was never an anarchists and participated in society as normal people to.

If you think your afterlife depends on you not doing somethings and doing some other things, then only a fool would not do those things because any finite amount of time is infinitely smaller than eternity.

Practically speaking, most other philosophy is 'anti-nihilist'.
It would be beyond me to tell you what the 'best' is, but I'd recommend you read Martin Buber. Hopefully in a good commented edition (because of the language use - he is creative with the German language).

>>8496760

We are all cucked by the universe and the forces beyond it in one way or another to some extent.

>>8500228
so the philosophy basically means nothing of value as you can behave just as you did before and because spook means everything it also means nothing at all
renind me again why all the plebs are fapping to this guy

>>8500998
Because that's literally the hipster nihilism.

>>8500998
Because you don't understand it at all. Spooks are ideas that manifest themselves in the real world by manipulating the mind of a person in possession of that idea.
It sounds like you haven't even attempted to understand him.

>>8500998
Just read the fucking book you lazy cunt.

If you base your opinion on a philosopher on image board memes you're not in a position to call people plebs.

>>8501050
His essence is distilled in meme form, the rest is just rambling about the same shit.

>>8497108
were you high at the time

>>8492388
nah, it really isn't lol

so many spooks in this thread

>>8500228
The question wasnt over God so much as that other anon using a specifically orthodox definition of worship.

Still bumping for that original anon to respond.

>>8496609
It's always funny seeing people get pissed at Stirner while not actually disagreeing with him, especially when their argument is something that is that he supports in the quotation.

>>8499117
Bumping for that anon to respond

>>8492366
Go East, young man. Look into both Buddhism and Taoism.

I'm almost completely positive that most of you guys just need to find out your confidence, work on your looks and just put yourself in some new situations, new experiences.
It won't even mater that much after you do this, but fix yourself some Nietzsche, some Stirner and some Camus and you'll be good.
Maybe I'm wrong thinking that's what you need to do, but it does feel better than anything else when you love yourself and you really find your confidence.

>>8503277
mah nigga Camus so handsome he just cracked philosophy

>>8496283
Don't feel the troll, anon. Nobody in this thread with more than a basic grasp of morality thinks you're describing anything remotely sociopathic.

>>8496644
Are you trying to kill him?

>>8501573
so you're saying that objective morality and a subjective-collective duality are concepts Stirner supports?

bump

>>8497257
>Hegel
I'm going to just mention that this is the only actually 100% correct response in the entire thread and it was almost entirely ignored except by one person who contradicted himself in his own refutation.

Hegel 100% BTFO nihilism and the only people who deny this are the butthurt who can't be bothered to study him.

Did this thread actually help you OP?

>>8505792
>Hegel BTFO nihilism
>anon actually believes in The Spirit of History

I like Hegel a lot, but any well-read person could blow holes through Hegel's theory that historical progression has a telos that we all participate in. Marx salvaged the idea by secularizing it, but the heart of Hegel's broadside on meaninglessness is pretty meaningless.

>>8492366
the bible

>>8505792
tht girl is a pretty cute qt
Will I get one if I read Hegel?

>>8492366
Fathers and Sons shits on nihilism if you're looking for that.

>>8507679
In the most silly way possible though.

>look kids, if you're a nihilist you get a fever and die and if you're a liberal you get married and live happily ever after!

Nihilism is a belief system, a doctrine, not any different than religion. It usually starts from a skeptical standpoint which is cool but goes on to negate this or that positive metaphysical, moral, epistemological etc. claim in the same manner as theology justifies existence of God, typically through circular reasoning ("duh!"), intellectually dishonest "bullying" or moving the goalpost (Spinoza etc.). Category error is also a favorite like "meaning of life".

OP I want to help you but I'm telling you you don't have to read "anti-nihilist" literature. All you have to do to "beat" nihilism (strong word for a phantasm) is to critically examine it and I promise you it will vanish into thin air.

>>8492366
Crime and Punishment is anti-nihilist in some respects.

>>8498353
>no answer to this

hmmmmmmmmm

>>8492366
Nihilism is the best Anti-nihilist philosophy.