Existential Absurdist Nihilist Hedonist Moral Relativism

[Anonymous No.3553467]

Existentialism means recognizing that each of us is truly and absolutely alone from birth until death. Nihilism is a rejection of all traditional values in recognition of the previous fact. Absurdism is the belief that there is no objective meaning or value in human life at all, but also the determination to seek value nonetheless. Hedonism is the belief that your own happiness is all that you can value in the absence of any objective meaning. Moral relativism is admitting that you cannot prove anyone else's ideas to be objectively wrong since you don't believe in objectivity anyway. And ego is what makes it so satisfying to watch you all recoil from these ideas in a refusal to admit your existence is as insignificant as an ant's.

[Anonymous No.3553493]

But all of these are very egoistic.

[Anonymous No.3553496]

>>3553467
Nihilism can be a lot more than just existential nihilism. That's just one brand of nihilism. there's also moral nihilism, which it sounds like you're getting at anyway

[Anonymous No.3553503]

>>3553467
so is it your own ego that makes it so satisfying to make other people feel as insignificant as you do?

[Anonymous No.3553509]

>all that uneducated and negative projection

[Anonymous No.3553511]

>>3553493
>>3553503
well, yes, of course. no matter what i think my reasons for doing something are, my ego will always be at the root of those motivations.

[Anonymous No.3553522]

>>3553467
if you're a relativist and don't believe in objectivity, how do you reconcile that with hedonism, which says happiness is intrinsically or objectively good?

[Tallis !!DxrlCMGAS2J No.3553531]

>>3553467
Most existentialist novels feature someone thinking like this and being forced to meet alterity and realize his absolute, absurd freedom.

Also, existentialism means having no inherent essence but one's own existence.

[Anonymous No.3553534]

>>3553522
if i don't believe in objectivity than how can i say hedonism is objectively wrong to believe in the value of happiness?

[Anonymous No.3553555]

>>3553531
Camus is a good example obviously. But even Boethius realizes his absurd freedom in Consolation of Philosophy

[Anonymous No.3553559]

But the ant's life is significant to other ants and organisms that prey on them or are symbiotic relationship. Life of a human has significance to other humans and organisms that live with humans or off of them.

There is significance in context.

[Anonymous No.3553563]

>>3553559
ok, but in less than 4 billion years the sun will expand into a red giant and consume the solar system, unless the Andromeda galaxy collides with our own before that. now where is the significance? even if it still exists, wouldn't you say that in the larger picture that significance is so miniscule as to be negligible

[Tallis !!DxrlCMGAS2J No.3553573]

>>3553563
>Even if the universe was to destroy mankind, mankind would always be superior to the universe, because the universe has no conscience of destroying mankind

Pascal - Thoughts

[Anonymous No.3553590]

>>3553573
consciousness is so hard to define that some modern theorists believe it is far more likely that things like rocks or even the universe have consciousness than not have it. isn't that the entire basis of religion and spirituality, or even intelligent design or the prime mover theory? that at the core of the universe there is a singular consciousness?

[Tallis !!DxrlCMGAS2J No.3553597]

>>3553590
Wait, can you name one of these theorists?
It sounds interesting, but it is certainly not coming from scientists, right?

[Anonymous No.3553616]

>>3553597
Shit, I will go looking for some names again. Sam Harris likes to talk about these theories and actually gives them credence and he is a neuroscientist

[Tallis !!DxrlCMGAS2J No.3553619]

>>3553616
Thanks, it is appreciated.

Looking up Sam Harris right now on wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.3553621]

>>3553467
is that really the size of the rock you guys imagine when reading about Sisyphus?

I mean come on, there's no way he could move that shit at that angle.

[Anonymous No.3553622]

>>3553467
>>3553496
He could have structured it like
>Existentialism means...
>Existential nihilism is a...
>Existential nihilist absurdism is the...
>and so forth...
until he arrived at the title. Looks good anyway, a nice way to progress definition. Maybe just tacky, dunno duncare

[Anonymous No.3553626]

>>3553619
I love Sam Harris. He loses the attention of a lot of atheists or a-theists if you prefer because he will consider things like inanimate consciousness and consciousness beyond death. I am an atheist as well and I think his openness to new and different ideas is a breath of fresh air in the conversation

[Tallis !!DxrlCMGAS2J No.3553627]

>>3553621

[Anonymous No.3553635]

>>3553590
>>3553597

I remember Alan Watts saying something like consciousness is the ability to react. So, he explains: a rock, does it not make sound when you rap it? I'm looking for it right now.

[Anonymous No.3553638]

>>3553627
small dick

[Anonymous No.3553642]

>>3553621
right, because moving a boulder over and over again is the least believable part of a story involving nymphs and gods?

[Anonymous No.3553649]

>>3553646
*is it wise for us...

[Anonymous No.3553646]

>>3553563
>as to be negligible
as a species of animal that has a lot of trouble imagining eternity (apeirophobia),
is fair for us to be calling shots as to what data is to be excluded from a yield of infinite data

[Anonymous No.3553654]

>>3553467
>tfw this is already my philosophy

This plus anarchism and there you have it.

[Anonymous No.3553658]

>>3553646
i'd argue that you can't really consider the implications of an idea too far into the future. i think it would be unwise to not consider 4 billion years or more into the future. only considering the relationships between organisms here on Earth is as arrogant as think humans are the center of "creation"

[Anonymous No.3553659]

>>3553654
Same here, too.
except this is my face when

[Anonymous No.3553663]

>>3553638
pointy butt cheeks

[Anonymous No.3553667]

>>3553642
But all of that is still logical within the context of the story.

Having a hill at a 50 degree gradient with a rock that appears to be ~1000 kg? I don't think so Timothy.

Here's what I had in mind...

[Anonymous No.3553668]

The truest form of understanding 'absurdity' comes through gestalt. Sure, there is the existentialism of Camus that reckons with and examines, although not entirely honestly, the incongruence and instability of a false society through the lens of tragedy. However, the Sartrian is most purely philosophical variant of existentialism, drawing from Sartre's training in the phenomenological subjectivism of Edmund Husserl, unenencumbered by God (Kirkegaard) and addressing directly man's inevitable reckoning with his being.

>"Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
>"To be, or not to be, that is the question..." Prince Hamlet

[Anonymous No.3553669]

>>3553658
oh no, definitely--yeah any theories that don't have scope are short-sighted, ha figuratively.
I just meant that when you're deciding significance (a usually subjective, and hotly-contested term), you can't say it without limiting to just your scope.
Can't define what's universally significant without being universal.

[Anonymous No.3553675]

>>3553667
consider this: Prometheus is condemned to have his liver eaten every day, only to have it regenerated overnight. Prometheus is given incredible healing capabilities only to have them used in his torture. Could Sisyphus not be given incredible strength only to have it wasted on an endlessly tedious task?

[Anonymous No.3553678]

>>3553658
>think humans are the center of "creation"
that's the other extreme
neither humans being negligible nor being ultimately significant strike me as accurate,
don't know if the questions posed right?

[Anonymous No.3553679]

>>3553467
I suppose I'm an absurdist, then.

[Anonymous No.3553681]

>>3553658
example of applying good scope:
"he who cannot draw on three thousand years is living from hand to mouth"

[Anonymous No.3553683]

>>3553678
if i did have to be a philosophical extremist, I think i'd have to side with the argument that ultimately everything, including humans, is entirely negligible

[Anonymous No.3553687]

>>3553675
Well sure, but if he was given above-normal strength then the punishment is immediately lessened. Then it would have been no different than any other easier, yet still tedious task, such as counting to a hundred over and over forever.

[Anonymous No.3553689]

>>3553679
so what do you do with this absurd freedom of yours?

[Anonymous No.3553691]

>>3553689
I fap to trannies, how about you?

[Anonymous No.3553693]

>>3553689
I make myself and others happy.

[Anonymous No.3553701]

>>3553467
Hedonism exists as an excuse for one to become absolutely nothing, hiding behind the idea that it doesn't matter anyway. Regardless of whether it matters in the absolute long run, why not try and contribute something to the world?
>Because no matter what, it's all pointless!
God forbid you find your own relative purpose rather than just giving up now. There's no reason why man shouldn't strive to become more than he is, whether that is a more free existence, a more intelligent one, or any other so long as it's better than the present. Of course, that can lead straight back into moral relativism (But you can't define 'better'!). However, there is always something better, even if it's just changing the numbers around. Just like one can strive to become smarter or stronger as a person, one can strive to do the same for his country, race, or culture, and while some may strive for supreme knowledge or absolute freedom or equality or whatever, the one absolute is that it's better than nothing if only in the short term.

[Anonymous No.3553702]

>>3553687
the point of the punishment isn't really the physical exertion, but the crushing, inescapable tedium. the physical exhaustion is merely representative of the philosophical punishment of doing something over and over forever with no significant results or changes. that's also the definition of insanity

[Tallis !!DxrlCMGAS2J No.3553706]

>>3553675
Prometheus was a titan, he already had this capacity. Sisyphus, however, was just a king.

[Anonymous No.3553712]

>And what of the idea of 'responsibility?'
Sartre concludes that everyone is ultimately responsible for his own being.
Rather than simple 'despair' such a reckoning would be a rational method of approaching and understanding one's own ultimate independence and the frightening responsibility that arrives with it.

It would make a wonderful antidote for those whining sycophants of Freud who are running around these days.

[Anonymous No.3553715]

>>3553701
>an excuse for one to become absolutely nothing
we already are nothing. we started as nothing and we shall continue to be nothing throughout this continuum. and all of these efforts you make cannot change that. I have embraced the freedom which you will never know

[Tallis !!DxrlCMGAS2J No.3553718]

"All language is metaphorical, although it is not a metaphor to say so."

Let's not forget that this is just discourse, and nothing else.

[Anonymous No.3553721]

>>3553718
God damn I hate mystics like this

[Anonymous No.3553726]

>>3553706
regardless, the point of the punishment is this:
>>3553702

[Anonymous No.3553728]

>>3553715
We are nothing in the absolute sense, since we're all just dirt that will later become dirt. However, we can and should embrace our relative purpose, the one we give ourselves, so that maybe it will have an impact after we're dirt.

[Anonymous No.3553729]

>>3553715

[Anonymous No.3553730]

>>3553563

What considers it negligible? The universe? As far as we know, it doesn't care, can't care.

Anthropomorphizing the universe is trippy. Conscious beings give things significance and consider them insignificant. You give things significant, consider them insignificant, or don't consider things at all, or things are significant for reasons beyond your control. You are significant to others and given significance by others by fact that you exist in this world with other beings.

[Anonymous No.3553731]

>>3553706
also, the point of abilities going to waste is still valid. Prometheus has incredible physical abilities that are wasted, and Sisyphus likewise has incredible cunning which is wasted on the tedium

[Anonymous No.3553732]

>>3553715
nothing rises out of nothing
we are self-evidently something
qed

[Tallis !!DxrlCMGAS2J No.3553737]

>>3553715
You're not embrassing any freedom but theoretical one; you're posting on /lit/.

>>3553721
What's mystic about this? It perfectly applies to most of the threads and especially >>3553715

>>3553726
I agree, I was just pointing out this detail.

>>3553728
Thinking about what's going on (down here) after your death is insanity.

[Anonymous No.3553738]

>>3553728
an impact on what? more dirt? for how long? long enough for that dirt to make an impact on the next set of dirt? this is hilariously futile

[Anonymous No.3553740]

>>3553737
>that pun mate

[Anonymous No.3553742]

>>3553738
So why haven't you killed yourself yet? Because you're afraid you're wrong, or because you're here serving some other purpose?

[Tallis !!DxrlCMGAS2J No.3553743]

>>3553740
Pretty happy someone noticed it

[Anonymous No.3553744]

>>3553737
since the freedom we're discussing is how I choose to view my own existence, isn't the theoretical the same as practical?

[Tallis !!DxrlCMGAS2J No.3553746]

>>3553738
What are you waiting for? Go kill Ivanovna.

[Anonymous No.3553747]

>>3553744
There's no such thing as freedom to think a certain way, the only relevant freedom is that of action. And you're evidently not embracing that freedom any more than the rest of us are.

[Tallis !!DxrlCMGAS2J No.3553749]

>>3553744
Can you prove that you chose it, though?

[Anonymous No.3553750]

>>3553742
oh i get close to swallowing a bottle of sleeping pills all the time, but i like pizza and reading too much to do that just yet. really i'm just staying around for "creature comforts" until I don't have the money or time to do the things I enjoy, at which point, I will happily wave a sleepy goodbye to all of this, no hurt feelings, just peace

[Anonymous No.3553753]

>>3553750
That's just sad. I'm glad I grew out of hedonism when I was twelve, I would hate to throw my life away because of what's going to happen an incomprehensible amount of time in the future.

[Anonymous No.3553756]

>>3553749
well, no. but if i didn't choose it, then i can't very well change it, and the distinction is irrelevant

[Anonymous No.3553761]

>>3553756
In which case your freedom is equally irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.3553762]

>>3553753
what exactly do you think you'd be throwing away? do you believe you have purpose?

[Anonymous No.3553766]

>>3553762
I believe my life is worth enough for me to give it a purpose, even if its impact is small now and gone in 10^12 years. I exist, and I don't shy away from my existence out of fear or apathy. That's enough for now.

[Anonymous No.3553767]

>>3553761
true, but in that case the perception would be much more consequential than the reality, and the perception of freedom would keep me as happy as any real freedom

[Anonymous No.3553772]

>>3553766
so you plan on reevaluating this self-worth later? "for now" seems to imply either that, or that you're just being short-sighted

[Anonymous No.3553777]

>>3553511
a hundred of years of psychology and he still thinks that the ego is the root...

[Anonymous No.3553780]

>>3553777
please, enlighten us

[Anonymous No.3553788]

>>3553772
I intend to evaluate my worth more than once in my life, but in a non-absolute sense. If my actions have a direct effect on the world now, then they'll have an indirect effect until an inconceivable span of time in the future.

>>3553767
If the perception of freedom is worth more than freedom itself in this case, then is the perception of self-worth not worth more than actual absolute worth?

[Anonymous No.3553789]

>>3553788
i suppose that's a good point. it all comes down to perception then, which we cannot prove we choose. perhaos i am simply incapable of perceiving self-worth, or incapable of choosing to perceive it.

[Anonymous No.3553790]

>>3553780

the unconscious is the root

[Anonymous No.3553795]

>>3553790
is my ego not a product of the unconscious? is my ego not how i choose to perceive myself based on unconscious perceptions, wants, and fears?

[Anonymous No.3553797]

>>3553790
Id/ego/superego is an outdated way of looking at thought anyway. They each could be better interpreted as things that can affect thought, but not the source of thoughts themselves. Otherwise, all of a man's thoughts would either support the id, the ego, or the superego, and that is not the case unless you can make a case that all forms of art and abstract, inapplicable thought are actually empathic or egotistical in nature.

[Anonymous No.3553803]

>>3553797
i think the case makes itself. and i think "abstract thought" is a misnomer, since all thought is abstract

[Anonymous No.3553808]

>>3553803
The thought, "I would like a sandwich" is not abstract, since all portions of that thought are firmly rooted in reality. The very real need for food, the idea of a sandwich, and the association of the two. Naturally, there are more complex examples of non-abstract thought, but the idea is that it is thought that directly applies to something else rather than existing within itself and to no particular purpose outside of thought itself. Forgive me if I'm using the phrase 'abstract thought' differently than it's usually said.

[Anonymous No.3553809]

I like living. The joy outweighs the pain a little bit.

Therefore I ought to value life a little bit.

?????Problem?

[Tallis !!DxrlCMGAS2J No.3553811]

abstract thought=/=metaphorical thought

all thought is metaphorical but not all thought is abstract

[Anonymous No.3553812]

>>3553808
you've already contradicted yourself, since liking a sandwich could have nothing to do with the very real need for food. but besides that, you cannot accurately define in words or expression the exact nature of the thought of liking or wanting something, making the thought abstract

[Anonymous No.3553813]

>>3553809
i can agree to this. until the pain outweights the joy of course. i still dont think there is any objective value though

[Anonymous No.3553814]

>>3553808
>>3553803
Also, while there may be aspects of all art that are rooted in the conscious or unconscious, like the artist's primal desire for affiliation, or the critic's egotistical schadenfreude, things like the human enjoyment of art can't be explained with these terms. They must be the product of a type of thought that exists independently.

[Anonymous No.3553816]

>>3553814
why? why can't the numinous be a product of the conscious and unconscious mind?

[Anonymous No.3553827]

>>3553812
I would argue that very few people eat without some impulse from the id, either animal hunger or simple dopamine in the brain released each time one eats. And those who do are doing so for another purpose which is otherwise grounded in reality. Again, correct my use of the phrase 'abstract thought' if I'm using it wrong.

>>3553816
Because the unconscious mind has no use for it, which is why no animal responds to music, and the ego gains nothing from it other than its more tangible effects, like the social situations which surround a dance. It could possibly be brought on by the superego, but only if art serves some purpose that we have not foreseen.

[Anonymous No.3553830]

MA NIG

[Anonymous No.3553836]

>>3553467
>insignificant
But in the absence of significance how does one deal with insignificance?

Significance isn't determined by objective truth but by sensation and projection.

[Anonymous No.3553842]

>>3553728
But even dirt is something, and surely we are more than dirt. The sum of our parts does not equal the individual pieces that make us. For example I am not water, but I am made from water.

[Anonymous No.3553843]

>>3553827
To expand, the reason the ego and superego cannot encompass art is because art is of no benefit to a man, nor does it tangibly effect the whole except in a 'life-imitates-art' sense that isn't even necessarily beneficial. Of course, one can think about the self and of the whole without using that thought to directly benefit either. However, that might imply that art's effects on the mind are like those of the smell on the taste of food; that is, a byproduct of other evolutionary constructs that serves no end. This view underestimates the effects of art on humanity, as art, especially in the modern age, is applied to even the most utilitarian of means, down to the shape and color of our corporations' skyscrapers.

[Anonymous No.3553845]

>>3553842
I was never arguing that we are insignificant because we're made of dirt. I was instead using that rhetoric to explain that while absolute meaning may be impossible to find, we must give ourselves a relative meaning that isn't dependent on what will become of it a few trillion years from now.

[Anonymous No.3554048]

bump

[Anonymous No.3554429]

>>3553845
So you recognize that in a few trillion years this will in fact all be meaningless, but are suggesting we must ignore that fact for our own sake?

[Anonymous No.3554455]

Whoa Sisyphus! Awesome pic. Great size. Look thick. Solid. Tight. Keep us all posted on your continued progress with any new progress pics or vid clips. Show us what you got man! Wanna see how freakin' huge, solid, thick and tight you can get.

[Anonymous No.3554790]

>>3553467
Is there any difference between a Hedonistic moral Nihilist and an Absurdist? Both acknowledge the meaninglessness of existence and the absence of moral objectivity yet strive for something despite that. Does it matter that the Hedonist searches for happiness while the Absurdist searches for value? What if happiness is found for the Hedonist by searching for value? What if value is found by the Absurdist searching for happiness? Are these terms not overlapping? Perhaps I'm missing something, but regardless of the semantics, I feel that the overall philosophy you've outlined describes the way I think reasonably well.

[Anonymous No.3554836]

>>3554429
Yes. Perhaps the end that seems so inevitable won't be, or we can reach some greater end despite it.

[Anonymous No.3554852]

Why do people seem to think hedonism comes at the cost of basic decency? I mean why can't someone pursue compassion and decency along with sexual decadence and self abuse? Can you not donate time to charity while at the same time pursuing bizarre sex acts and drug abuse? Does one cancel out the other?

[Pookie No.3554903]

>>3554852
If an apple is half rotten, its a rotten apple.

[Anonymous No.3554905]

>>3554903

'rotten' isn't something that exists apart from abstraction. There's nothing 'rotten' about sexually licentious behavior or drug use.

[Pookie No.3554911]

>>3554905
Thats debatable. The implications of such behaviour on other people could lead one to consider it to be rotten.

[Anonymous No.3554913]

>>3554852
I don't believe that drug use necessarily constitutes self-abuse, and sexual decadence isn't morally wrong, so those specific things would be a part of my life if I was a hedonist only because they are now. Hedonism is the acknowledgement that everything you do is for nothing. Subhuman-level copout hedonism is denying yourself any self-worth or place in society based on those terms, and shying away from one's own existence as a result.

[Anonymous No.3554916]

>>3554911

That's implying that these things are necessarily having negative effects on other people. That's a baseless assumption.

[Pookie No.3554919]

>>3554916
What makes it baseless?

[Anonymous No.3554928]

>>3554919

A lack of foundation in reality.

[Anonymous No.3554929]

>>3554916
A true hedonist, theoretically, would be able to just rape and kill people without remorse because it doesn't matter in the long run, but no one is advocating that anyway.

>>3554919
How does drug use hurt other people, aside from avoidable problems like second-hand smoke, and those caused by society, such as drug cartels?

[Pookie No.3554937]

>>3554928
>>3554929

Well you could argue that drug use can lead to self destruction, which can upset family members and people who care for that person.

I suppose issues in society are more debateable, but I worked at a supermarket in a bad part of Glasgow for a few months, the amount of junkies who would come in was surprising and on more then one occasion they attacked the staff. These are negative effects on other people.

[Anonymous No.3554953]

>>3554937
>self destruction, which can upset family members
So, in this case, is anything that causes a negative empathic reaction from someone else also wrong? In that case, everybody would be obligated to become the best that they could possibly be, and all their failures would be morally wrong. It's not an incorrect way of thinking, but certainly one I haven't explored.

At any rate, drug use doesn't /necessarily/ lead to self-destruction. Addiction can, and being on the wrong side of the law once in today's society is walking on the edge of a cliff, so to speak. However, you could argue that addiction is surmountable, and that the problems created by the law (A man gets charged with felony drug possession, cannot get a job because of his criminal record, and turns to crime in order to keep his quality of life) are not the fault of the drug itself. A junkie attacking a person, likewise, should not be blamed on the drug, but the person's inability to handle it, or their nature which the drug itself allowed him to express. People should always be smart about what they smoke, but blaming the substance for the actions of the person gains nothing.

[Pookie No.3554972]

>>3554953
I never blamed the drug, I blamed drug use. Blaming the drug would be silly, they are all Hedonists and dont care.

[Anonymous No.3554980]

>>3554972
Right. I find that while addiction can do some awful things to people, in the end they are responsible for their actions no matter what they were smoking at the time.

[Anonymous No.3556034]

bump