/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19767869]

Any books on the rise of "moral nihilists"?
it would seem to me that Nietzsche's last man is less an immediate threat to humanity than what we have now; a people who believe in nothingness, but are as deeply moralistic as the Christians of old. Fundamentally their morality is Christian, but in removing God completely from their center of gravity they have no real understanding of why they believe what they do, and as such they believe in it far more dogmatically.
have any authors written about this? it makes me unironically picrel

[Anonymous No.19767919]

>>19767869
I could write that book I'll title it Vegetarian Eggs

[Anonymous No.19767926]

>>19767919
good title desu

[Anonymous No.19768418]

>>19767869
What we have now is nietzsches last man. He follows "goodness" without knowing why he follows it and cant overcome his inner anger because he doesnt understand it, since he isnt supposed to have "no goodness feelings"
(Ted Kaczinsky calls these people "oversocialised", they have been thaught that they are not supposed to have bad emotions and if they take this socialisation to heart its like they are their own prisoner and guard in a panopticum).

[Anonymous No.19768542]

>>19768418
Similar to what I was thinking. If society is becoming increasingly atheistic, then why are we no closer to the ubermensch? The only possible conclusion is that slave morality has continued and evolved into an atheistic form? But what is it called? What form does it take? I asked this in a thread I made a while back and only got seethe in reply

[Anonymous No.19768641]

If I post these again, will it get the thread moving?

1/5

[Anonymous No.19768644]

>>19768641
2/5

[Anonymous No.19768652]

>>19768644
3/5

[Anonymous No.19768653]

>>19768418
You're not wrong but to me the distinction is in "feeling good" and "being good". The latter seems to be heavily impacted by the formerr, and there is an overwhelming narrative of "if it feels good and its "safe"(tm), it is good", but there's still quite a bit of weakness/hardship/suffering worship that is deeply Christian and significant enough to not write off. Unless it's all just a sacrifice towards the goodness feelings that are rewarded to them by others for their suffering/perceived suffering.
>>19768542
it's partially mixing up cause and effect. people today seem to think that christianity was created to enforce a morality that was always existent, when in actuality that morality was created by and for christianity (and its predecessors, obviously).

[Anonymous No.19768656]

>>19768652
4/5

[Anonymous No.19768660]

>>19768656
5/5

[Anonymous No.19768669]

>>19768653
Ok. So if the morality was created by and for Christianity, then now that we are losing Christianity, what is it being replaced by?

[Anonymous No.19768704]

>>19768669
Christianity is replaced by "science" in the minds of most of these people. Hence why its morals are reified into some eternal and unquestionable fact of life.
I don't know if "science" is a temporary replacement or not, but it is able to and does fulfill most of the same functions as Christianity. It just can't explain the morality, which is why the belief in it is more fervent. basically the "it just is ok?" meme

[Anonymous No.19768725]

>>19768542
before God was dead people used to practice cognitive dissonance to continue to believe in God. now they practice cognitive dissonance to continue following Christian moral code even though there is no intact system of belief justifying that behavior. it's obviously unsustainable and actually amazing that it's lasted this long.
it's like we were peering over the edge of a cliff and wondering what was down there. we took a risk and stopped believing in God and, big surprise, found ourselves falling into the void. we managed to stop ourselves on a ledge but there's no way of getting back up and falling further is just a matter of time. it would be nobler at this point to accept the inevitable and just let go

[Anonymous No.19768746]

>>19768725
>people used to practice cognitive dissonance to continue to believe in God
Can you explain this and in what ways it would work?

[Anonymous No.19768754]

>>19767869
The battle now is between liberal humanism and social humanism.

[Anonymous No.19768787]

>>19768641
So many statements like this in his works and yet I often see people argue against Nietzsche's biological determinism.

[Anonymous No.19768910]

>>19767869
There is no book needed on this top. It's just a sociological consensus already.

[Anonymous No.19768951]

>>19768660
I was watching a Houllebecq interview the other day and he mentioned Nietzsche fancied himself as an aristocrat because of his Polish nobility and he spat at it. You call that nobility?

https://youtu.be/ZtiJQZTqu9M?t=398

[Anonymous No.19769000]

>>19767869
Derrida, it's a metaphysics of presence which is what Christianity adopted (not the other way around), something that makes up our ontological thinking and thus the basis of how we perceive the world and our role within it

[Anonymous No.19769209]

>>19767869
"Moral nihilism" is already a (quite well-known) term that means something else. Also I don't see how the absence of an absolute authority would make people more dogmatic. Sorry you got called out for being racist or whatever.

[Anonymous No.19769318]

>>19769209
My idea is that the reason which these people were raised with (or with the remnants of) has been removed, making the belief itself the reason. This hardens the idea completely, and makes people more dogmatic towards it—as it’s so fundamental to them that it cannot be questioned, else they should have to rethink their entire worldview.
I put “moral nihilism” in quotes because I don’t have a name for it. And obviously I’m no genius, nor do I have it all figured out, hence why I’m asking for recommendations.

[Anonymous No.19769330]

>>19769318
But how does a belief in god "soften" the idea? One would still have to rethink their worldview, right?

[Anonymous No.19769389]

>>19769330
Because they have a reason that can be questioned, and a reason that’s questionable enough that most believers, even the most ardent, doubt at points. Removing the reason and making the moral belief it’s own reason removes that weakness. Unironically read Hume if you are interested in how people can falsely reason and create a foundation for the rest of their understanding.
It’s no longer “killing is bad because God says so and he’ll send you to hell if you do” it’s just “killing is bad because it’s bad”. When you question why it’s bad they’ll list a number of potential effects of killing, but they cannot answer why it, or any of those things, are bad—and get frustrated and angry when they have to question it.

[Anonymous No.19769451]

>>19769209
>Also I don't see how the absence of an absolute authority would make people more dogmatic.
because there isn’t an absence of authority, christian morality had been sublimated into enlightenment liberalism

[Anonymous No.19769536]

>>19768653
>christianity was created to enforce a morality that was always existent

there isn't some level of evolutionary psychology to morality? i think there is to aesthetic judgement. Babies gaze longer at symmetrical faces ect. i can't recall what Nietz said on that but I recall it was somewhere within it.

[Anonymous No.19769626]

>>19769536
I'm not gonna say there isn't--though I subscribe to Hume's belief that morality is created out of necessity of society, not anything inherent in a man--but these people don't say "x is bad because our psychology is opposed to it", they say "it's bad because it's bad" and reason outwards. The action would be bad, to them, even if it happened in a society where nobody was opposed to it, because the action itself is bad, not a persons reaction to it.

[Anonymous No.19769649]

>>19769209
>Also I don't see how the absence of an absolute authority would make people more dogmatic.
you have to be a complete retard not to see it. you should off yourself.

[Anonymous No.19769704]

>>19769649
He started out by accusing me of being a racist. He is a complete retard, and likely one of them that we are talking about.

[Anonymous No.19769711]

>>19767869
You are literally describing the last men, anon.

[Anonymous No.19769756]

>>19769711
I understood the last men as not believing in anything. The people I’m describing believe, just their belief is ultimately empty and they don’t understand their belief, as it exists in nothingness. I could have misread, though.

[Anonymous No.19770762]

>>19768669
Islam

[Anonymous No.19770781]

>>19768653

>You're not wrong but to me the distinction is in "feeling good" and "being good". The latter seems to be heavily impacted by the formerr, and there is an overwhelming narrative of "if it feels good and its "safe"(tm), it is good", but there's still quite a bit of weakness/hardship/suffering worship that is deeply Christian and significant enough to not write off. Unless it's all just a sacrifice towards the goodness feelings that are rewarded to them by others for their suffering/perceived suffering.

I agree with this, and both frame basically 2 sides of an ongoing discourse. One of hedonism and one of sympathy for the weak. Because if you're a loser, you don't get to have any fun :(

Both are very low minded and you're stuck with one or the other with most people too often

[Anonymous No.19770891]

>>19768725
Would it be safe to say that removing God (or "Religion") from the equation doesn't change the fact that people on some level are innately superstitious or spiritual? It's why it became a mild joke when someone would describe themselves as "Spiritual, but not Religious". Also why some people have such a fervent attachment to things like science, as >>19768704 pointed out, which is ironic since science is generally about fostering healthy skepticism. Possibly might explain the upswing in belief in aliens as well.

[Anonymous No.19771476]

>>19769389
Anyone who's thought about it can reason why killing is bad (for you, the killer) in the long run and it's bad if there are killers (for you, a killer or not). Because le God or because it just is OKAY! is just more efficient. Instead of every individual ruminating over the implications of taking each other's lives and coming to a consensus on why we shouldn't do it, we can all save time by making it a value that's part of a moral system that's the default for all the participants in society.

[Anonymous No.19771491]

>>19767869
I see the Last Men everywhere I go and they make me SICK

[Anonymous No.19771531]

>>19771491
Good thing you know that you are better then all those plebians

[Anonymous No.19772097]

>>19767869
>>it would seem to me that Nietzsche's last man is less an immediate threat to humanity than what we have now; a people who believe in nothingness, but are as deeply moralistic
if you weren't so dumb you'd understand the two are the same thing

[Anonymous No.19773247]

>>19769626
Well sure but that pertains to an animal with an existing evolutionary history making a judgement on a separate being. People already do that with the other species they encounter today.
The reason I ask this is because I notice people have visceral reactions to digital images even though they are divorced many times over from their physical context. People are dumb but I don't think they would start thinking dog shit is good if it was enforced by the media.

[Anonymous No.19773264]

>>19769626
>"x is bad because our psychology is opposed to it", they say "it's bad because it's bad" and reason outwards

Also I'd say those are the same thing. They just have a folk conception of what it means. The appeal to nature is always existing at the backs of people's minds if they are directed as such. It just moves to "intuition" and a few other terms.

[Anonymous No.19773423]

>>19770891
The world can't be perceived without values imposed on it. Objects have no reality in themselves because they are formless without an observer. Belief in other consciousnesses is "superstitious", as is the belief that they perceive the same world as you do. "Spiritual but not religious" people are just intuitively wise enough to notice that the realist materialism perspective doesn't work even though they aren't thinking philosophically about it. Nietzsche's ideal was "free-spirited".

[Anonymous No.19773894]

>>19768542
>If society is becoming increasingly atheistic, then why are we no closer to the ubermensch?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kwq7RHlmSpM
watch at 1.25x speed

[Anonymous No.19773907]

>>19767869
They don't literally believe in Christian morality, that's just stupid. But they are extremely influenced by it and have taken up the strict good/evil divide.

But they are the last men, they don't actually believe in it. It takes no sacrifice, it's just prancing most of the time.

[Anonymous No.19773938]

>>19773894
>>19768542
and tl;dw he mentions Peterson's remark on how Jung and Nietzsche disagreed on the idea that man can create their own values, then spends the rest of the video going into Jung's analysis of Zarathustra and how they actually agreed but Jung said "if Zarathustra was patient Nietzsche could have followed him" implying that Nietzsche wouldn't have gone insane if his idea of how to become Superman wasn't to destroy all values before you've come up with a replacement.

[Anonymous No.19773980]

Walden - Thoreau

[Anonymous No.19774777]

>>19769626
society is created out of necessity in man...

[Anonymous No.19776312]

>>19768542
It's called Utilitarianism.

[Anonymous No.19776343]

>>19768542
The Enlightenment claims to want to abandon religion in exchange for reason, however, they hypocritically don't want to abandon the universal(slave) morals that come with it. Thus we came up with half-assed attempts to develop a secular "universal morality", such as Utilitarianism, Categorical Imperative, Secular humanism, and Communism. Which all fail because with the death of God, the natural world doesn't adhere to any form of morality.

[Anonymous No.19777082]

>>19767869
Nietzschecels are so stupid why are you taking life advice from a perpetually depressed loser

[Anonymous No.19777103]

>>19768641
>>19768644
>>19768652
>>19768656
>>19768660
No wonder he's so annoying