[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 55 KB, 400x600, tumblr_om3twqdW1u1ukalfso1_400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13475058 No.13475058 [Reply] [Original]

At any given moment, you can ask yourself “who cares”, as in, “why should I have any obligation to be emotionally invested in this?” Interestingly, this is nihilist thinking, because it assumes a freedom from gods or masters, and a rejection from universal morality, the idea that there are things you “should” and “shouldn’t” care about, by a fantastical notion of some sort of universal prescription, aka. universal morality, ie. the idea that someone “must care” about certain issues. Religions capitalize on the concept of universal morality a lot, even though there are so many religious sects with so many different beliefs. Ironically, although it is nihilist thinking, it could also be looked at as cognitive re-framing. If at any moment one is disturbed by something, you could ask yourself “who cares?”, and if you truly convince yourself there is no reason for you to care, then you can relinquish your suffering at the hands of sorrow, whether due to shortcomings of yourself, or of the uncaring cosmos which inexorably does not care about your feelings either.

The “problem” of “who cares”, from a strictly prescriptive standpoint, is that this is simultaneously frees those, who don’t follow make believe gods or masters, from slave morality, and creates a dilemma for moralists who want their preferences to be universal law. It also causes a problem, consequently, for the nihilist, when it seems the universe forsakes the things they care about. Neither the moralist nor the nihilist get what they want universally. The religious person would say “it is all part of gods plan”, or the politicians who disfavored one group to privilege another would say “it is going well for us, but not for you”. In a universe where you can’t always get what you want, “who cares”, becomes an overwhelming, all encompassing, unresolveable question.

The former problem of what to do about moralist outrage would be simply dismissing the moralists, whether by ignoring them, or making a very carefully argued case for nihilism. The latter problem of cosmic uncertainty and dread is not so easily ameliorated. For the true nihilist, these dilemmas appear as inexorable, universal truths, which cannot simply be expunged from one’s perspective once realized. For the universe in which entropy drives everything, and nothing is set in stone, this uncertainty becomes a sort of prison of emptiness. For most people, because they have a strong fear associated with uncertainty, choose to cling to fabricated universals, while the nihilist is left to swim the deep waters, on their epicurean journey to Ithaca, as one might say.

>> No.13475085

>>13475058
Who cares lmao

>> No.13475229

bump

>> No.13475353

bump

>> No.13475508

bump

>> No.13475536

>>13475058
Things don't have to perfect, universal or eternal to be worthwhile.

>> No.13475567
File: 296 KB, 996x996, futurism_aeropittura_tato_flying_over_the_coliseum.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13475567

The basic conclusion of this seems nearly Stoic. One thing I remain a little uncertain of, was whether the Stoics took the cardinal virtues as a divine prerogative, or something of a utilitarian disposition to take.
They had theological/pseudotheological beliefs, but seemed to take it that these greater forces just didn't give a strong fuck about what you felt.

>> No.13475619

>>13475536
No, but when your country is run by fascists, imperfection is the least of your worries.

>> No.13475634

>>13475085
fpbp