[ 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: 3 KB, 125x120, 1395777143943.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4726168 No.4726168[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

WHY ARENT YOU A FUCKING NIHILIST YET YOU STUPID FUCKING PRICK?

You have 20 seconds to formulate a reasonable answer.

>> No.4726174

But I am
Feels good, man

>> No.4726177

me 2 feels good man

ledonatelo.jpeg

>> No.4726183

>>4726168
Because I read G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy.

>> No.4726193

>>4726183
>"since the beginning of the world, all men have hunted me like a wolf - kings and sages, and poets and law-givers, all the churches, and all the philosophers. But I have never been caught yet."

checkmate, bitch

>> No.4726197

>>4726168
Because I can't ignore my feels

>> No.4726206

Because nihilism is incompatible with scientism.

>> No.4726208
File: 1.06 MB, 1280x970, 1393108221872.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4726208

Because I am not 14 anymore

>> No.4726210

>>4726206
How so?

>> No.4726212

I am a nihilist. For the past three weeks, at least three times a week I've made my girlfriend store food between her crotch and her panties, underneath her jeans. Then she gets home and I eat it. I don't give a fuck anymore.

>> No.4726213

>>4726168
because at least nazis had an ethos

>> No.4726221

>>4726213
that movie was about how nihilism's true but you shouldn't be a dick anyway because bowlers will kill you

>> No.4726237

>>4726221
>implying the cowboy at the bowling's bar isn't god
>implying there could be a nihilist god

>> No.4726245

>>4726237
>make up nihilist god
>worship him
Done

>> No.4726264

>>4726245
>nihilist worshipping
you dungoofed

>> No.4726303
File: 20 KB, 795x561, bingles.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4726303

>>4726264
This is my new god, Bingles. He flies around in the sky and shoots down Germans and tells us we should do anything we want because YOLO
If we worship him you get reincarnated as WWI fighter aces and we can shoot down Germans, too.

Prove Bingles isn't real, and give me one good reason not to worship him You can't!

>> No.4726324

>>4726245
Nothing.
Nothingness is all around us and through us and of us. You believe you are touching a table or a chair, but really the infinitesimal particles that form the loosely connected cloud that you believe to be your body are interacting with the infinitesimal particles that form the loosely connected particles that you believe to be an object.
Everything is just interaction over distance, every particle, every person, every thing is alone. Nothing can touch you or give you comfort, because there is nothing there with you.
Nothing but nothing. The nothing, a great, single nothing that stretches through you and through everything. And that nothing is God.
And it is perfect, unpained and eternal and waiting. All existence has emerged from nothing, and all will return to it. You must learn to love Nothing, even though Nothing cannot love you back.
If you love Nothing, you will never be alone, never be afraid, and never be uncertain.
You will have Nothing, and Nothing will be Good.

>> No.4726327

>>4726303
>Shooting down Germans in WW1
>Flying inferior Nieuport's
>Not flying superior German Fokker's

Your God has poor taste.

>> No.4726337

>>4726168
What kind of nihilism are you referring to?

>> No.4726342

>>4726327
>this is what infidels ACTUALLY BELIEVE
Bingles'll wreck the red baron and all you other kaiser-kissin'-krauts.
The hun are false gods
prove me wrong

>> No.4726344

Because I'm not an edgy fedora.

>> No.4726347

The new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. . . . As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. . . . The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.

>> No.4726352
File: 703 KB, 1200x809, red-baron-recce1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4726352

>>4726327
This.

Accept Manfred von Richthofen as your lord and saviour.

>> No.4726353

>>4726342
>Thinking you will wreck anything
My plane has THREE WINGS NIGGER.

Get your pleb shit out of here before I turn circles around you.

>> No.4726354

>>4726168
Because I have faith in God.

>> No.4726356
File: 45 KB, 418x580, willem.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4726356

>>4726327
>fokker
>german

>> No.4726363

WHY AREN'T YOU A MEREOLOGICAL NIHILIST YET YOU FUCKING PRICK?

You have 20 temporal minima to formulate a reasonable answer.

>> No.4726370

>>4726352
>>4726353
>baron got shot down by some Aussie gunner on the ground
>Bingles was never shot down
>Bingles is still flying, and was always flying
Not that much of a hard choice for me, m8

>> No.4726374

nihilism is unnecessary when you are good dancer.

>> No.4726377

>>4726347
That's not the new rebel, that's the new sheep

>> No.4726383

>>4726324
how can you distinguish nothing from nothing? does there not need to be a polar opposite to give meaning to nothing as in "nothing is the absence of something"

>> No.4726384

>>4726383
who cares :---)

>> No.4726389

>>4726384
nigga fuck ur nihlism

>> No.4726393

nihilism is a pleb tier response to the absurd

>> No.4726395

>>4726389
There's literally no reason for you to think otherwise (;-^{D>

>> No.4726396

b-but i am, don't yell at me ; ;

>> No.4726400

>>4726393
>absurd
Name one thing that's absurd, kid

>> No.4726407

>>4726393
Absurdism is just nihilism with a dumb smile and a shrug.

>> No.4726408

>>4726168

because i'm an artist, and when an artist sees a blank canvas, he paints

>> No.4726412

>>4726408
So ur a fascist?

>> No.4726419

I am in retirement from my rutting career.

>> No.4726423

>>4726412

no, just far beyond your reach

>> No.4726430

>>4726423
well no shit i can't even see u how can i reach u LMFAO

>> No.4726436

>>4726393
There is no absurd.

>> No.4726469

>>4726412
no, he's just a deluded existentialist

>> No.4726913

>>4726469

i'll accept that label, sure.

>> No.4726945

Because there's a clear order and movement to the universe.

That and I'm not a teenager

>> No.4726992

>>4726945
top kek, this ain't the 1600s, we strings now.

>> No.4727733

>>4726168

I am not a nihilist; I have too much fun.

>> No.4727753

what are you guys 13 years old?

nihilism is for virgin neckbeards who can't function

>> No.4727763

Because I read Nietzsche and I choose life affirmation

>> No.4727764

>>4727753
Which alternative do you offer?

>> No.4727770

>>4727763
Joke's on you, Nietzsche's life affirmation is nihilistic.

>> No.4727777

>>4727753
>wat is 4chan

>> No.4727784

>>4727770

It's a different kind to the conventional nihilism though.

>> No.4727793
File: 26 KB, 309x488, camus 001.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4727793

I almost was. I'm over it, now.

>> No.4728006

what's stupid is the emotional connotations people give to nihilism. Equating nihlism with a crappy personality and bad attitude, or believing you have to be that way because you are nihilist, is immature.

>> No.4728009

I am
Like it matters

>> No.4728030

>>4726324
How's highschool

>> No.4728426
File: 79 KB, 467x591, 500full.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4728426

>>4728009

>> No.4728439

Because I am the master of all things in my domain, faggot.

>> No.4728446

>>4728439
>at night the park was his domain

>> No.4728450

Does it really matter?

>> No.4728449

>>4726168
It wasn't fun.

>> No.4728474

If nothing matters then neither does conduct, belief, integrity, logic, whatever. I like believing in logic and other stuff so either I'm right, or it doesn't matter.

One of my favorite jokes: nihilism doesn't matter

>> No.4728516

>>4726168
That must be exhausting.

>> No.4728528

Nihilists are dicks.

>> No.4728530
File: 279 KB, 512x384, 1274585201385.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4728530

>Nihilism
>Reason
I should've honestly expected nothing less than contradictions from a Nihilist, so I guess it's all "my bad".

>> No.4728542
File: 111 KB, 540x699, William_James_b1842c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4728542

the way out of nihilism is to embrace pragmatism. Pic related knows what's up.

>> No.4728569

>>4726206
>scientism
kek. kill yourself

>> No.4728614

I don't care enough to find out what label I should use to describe myself.

I imagine it wouldn't be flattering though

>> No.4728690

Wittgenstein. That is all.

>> No.4729197

>>4728569
Which method of inquiry do you consider more authorative than the scientific method?

>> No.4729325

>>4728542
so huffing nitrous?

>> No.4729595

>>4729197
Not that anon, but ethics, for instance, demands a different method of inquiry. Why? Because the purpose of ethics is not to work in the same way scientific theories are supposed to work. Ethical theories can be normative unlike scientific theories which are descriptive. It's pointless to try to falsify or verify ethical theories, because the criteria for their correctness rests on different principles to begin with.

Of course it's possible to twist the scientific method to fit whatever cultural imperialistic purposes one might have, but it won't remain scientific anymore. Similarly, a philosophical process of conceptual clarification won't be able to predict any events to come. Philosophy has its own limits, which are much due to philosophers' general reluctance to take the small logical leaps that make scientists able to predict, generalize and at times assume that unobservable entities exist (if you're a scientific realist).

>> No.4729620

essential nihilist reads?

>> No.4729640

>>4729595
This is merely a problem if you're insisting on the perpetuation of ethical systems, though. It's like saying the scientific method doesn't work because it's shit for theology. The reason we don't simply assume a non-cognitivist position and leave it as that is merely because we don't want to.

If our needs aren't met by the inquiry made possible by the scientific method, we shouldn't rush to assume that the scientific method falls short, but perhaps that reality itself falls short, or rather, that we are feeling entitled, that our desires are unrealistic, that the problem is our over-assuming anthropocentric approach.

>> No.4729654

>>4729640
Stopped reading at
>This is merely a problem if you're insisting on the perpetuation of ethical systems

>if humans made it up it isnt real and can't be a really really good idea.

Grow up.

>> No.4729684

>>4729620
stort woth tho groks

>> No.4729696

>>4729654
If you're throwing a tantrum at the mere notion of moral nihilism you're not fit to discuss ethics in the first place.

But by all means elaborate on those different principles by which you establish the correctness of normative ethical theories.

>> No.4729698

>>4729640
>It's like saying the scientific method doesn't work because it's shit for theology.
No. I merely pointed out that scientific method doesn't fit in a field that isn't graspable by science. Scientific method works if we're looking to create a theory to depict, explain or predict phenomena.

>The reason we don't simply assume a non-cognitivist position and leave it as that is merely because we don't want to.
Non-cognitivism is not necessarily linked to this. Moral value can't be operationalized, because it does not rise from natural properties. It is rather given. The possibility to change one's mind on the morality of a given decicion proves argues for this.

>If our needs aren't met by the inquiry made possible by the scientific method, we shouldn't rush to assume that the scientific method falls short, but perhaps that reality itself falls short, or rather, that we are feeling entitled, that our desires are unrealistic, that the problem is our over-assuming anthropocentric approach.
The scientific method obviously falls short when it's applied on a field where being scientific is not the case. Anthropocentrism is just as irrelevant to this issue as being against it.

>> No.4729722

>>4729698
>The possibility to
>proves argues for

Well shit.
But yeah, that's that.

>> No.4729742

>that weird feeling when as you feel more confident in suicide as a solution and less irrationally afraid of the repercussions

we're gonna make it bros

>> No.4729746

>>4729742
>tfw cosy exit button within reach so life isn't threatening any more

>> No.4729777

Like you I simply, I found this there isn't any meaning in the world.

Unlike you, I realize It was up to me to create it. Nihilism is only good to realize that life is a blank paper; learn to write on it.

>> No.4729778

>>4729698
>No. I merely pointed out that scientific method doesn't fit in a field that isn't graspable by science. Scientific method works if we're looking to create a theory to depict, explain or predict phenomena.
Yes, and I pointed out that one should ask the question if such fields aren't completely arbitrary in their findings. There's no reason to assume that the field itself has any validity in the first place.
>Non-cognitivism is not necessarily linked to this. Moral value can't be operationalized, because it does not rise from natural properties. It is rather given. The possibility to change one's mind on the morality of a given decicion proves argues for this.
That might be so, but I've yet to encounter valid criteria to distinguish in any way between more and less valid moral statements. The fact that people have moral values doesn't validify (normative) ethics as a legitimate field of inquiry and as an example doesn't it allow for the scientific method to be said to come up short.
>The scientific method obviously falls short when it's applied on a field where being scientific is not the case. Anthropocentrism is just as irrelevant to this issue as being against it.
The question is, then, which other method we can apply in those fields, and if there aren't any satisfactory ones, if we shouldn't dismiss those fields altogether.

>> No.4729779

>>4729777
How does one go about creating meaning except making statements and adhering to them in a completely arbitrary way?

>> No.4729865

>>4729778
>Yes, and I pointed out that one should ask the question if such fields aren't completely arbitrary in their findings. There's no reason to assume that the field itself has any validity in the first place.
There are numerous ethical theories and ethical stances that are the products of millennia of philosophical thinking, a tradition that predates science by far. They are, in principle, ways to approach ethics, not definite answers to philosophical problems. The findings of philosophy are new ways to tackle the problems. They make up the progress of philosophy. This nature of philosophy will make philosophy last far longer than science. Precisely because there can be Theory of Everything in philosophy.

>That might be so, but I've yet to encounter valid criteria to distinguish in any way between more and less valid moral statements. The fact that people have moral values doesn't validify (normative) ethics as a legitimate field of inquiry and as an example doesn't it allow for the scientific method to be said to come up short.
That's because there isn't a thorough agreement in philosophy on what constitutes a valid criteria for a morality of a statement. I didn't argue that people having moral values would legitimate ethics. The legitimation itself depends on what the goals are. Science legitimizes itself because it produces scientific statements.

>The question is, then, which other method we can apply in those fields, and if there aren't any satisfactory ones, if we shouldn't dismiss those fields altogether.
Open discussion with academic input will do.

>> No.4729870

>>4729865
>Precisely because there can be NO Theory of Everything in philosophy
Whoops, fixed.

>> No.4729884

Because I'm a theist.

>> No.4729960

>>4729696
Golden rule. Eye for eye etc. etc. easy to see.

>> No.4730076

>>4729960
"Easy to see" isn't an argument.

>> No.4730133

>>4729884
you are being SO brave right now

>> No.4730182

>using words to describe your philosophy

You realize you destroy the search space by doing this? Why so irrational? Is it the trends anon? Don't be a trendy humanities faggot. Please.

>> No.4730222
File: 107 KB, 1048x720, 137806025297.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4730222

When you truly internalize the idea that nothing really matters life becomes so much more stress-free and cozy.

Having such an attitude is one of the reasons I got over social anxiety. Feels good man.

>> No.4730236

>>4729620
oblomov

catcher in the rye

fight club.

>> No.4730277

>>4726384

i loled

>> No.4730281

>>4730222
WHO PUT ALL OF THAT "CAKE" ON THAT ITALIAN GIRLS FACE?

>> No.4730292

I've noticed the most common reason is 'because I'm not edgy/fedora/teenaged' which would seem to indicate that these people derive their beliefs from that society seems fashionable and shouldn't really be here

>> No.4730298

>>4730222
boxy didn't age well

>> No.4730303

>>4730236
>oblomov
In which way?

>> No.4730310

because i have a girlfriend, a job i like and an enjoyable life

>> No.4730312

>>4730292
>shouldn't really be here

Every single thing about this place, every meme, every joke, every catchphrase, derives from external shame.

>> No.4730313

>>4730292
What*
deems*

>> No.4730317

I was a nihilist once in grad school. I listened to Nirvana, drank a bunch of beer, tried my best to emanate sarcastic apathy... then I started to see the good in moral systems, even if they are totally constructed.

>> No.4730321
File: 97 KB, 598x800, mootandcatie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4730321

>>4730298

You shut your whore mouth.

>> No.4730322

>>4730310
That's the perfect time to become nihilist

>> No.4730326

>>4730317

What kind of good?

>> No.4730335

Nihilism is just a constant 'no'
How can one be a nihilist
I agree with the conclusion that life is meaningless and morals constructed but that isn't a doctrine for living, you can't *do* anything with that

>> No.4730336

>>4730303

because oblomov is supposed to be this terrible life, but it's actually quite fine and he fucks his pleb bitch with big titties and lives his life doing what he wants and not what he is supposed to do.

The moral is supposed to be that he is a useless faggot, but i choose to view it in the opposite way, he is not spooked.

>> No.4730341

>>4730326

Like, maybe not the good in "objectively impermissible act-types", but the good at the individual level- in being patient instead of angry, noble instead of petty, etc.

>> No.4730342

>>4730335

It helps to be a nihilist so that you care less about the bad feels. That's the truth m8.

>> No.4730346

>>4730341

so being a beta faggot? lol. good goyim i bet girls love to tell you their emotional problems.

>> No.4730350

>>4730335

When people say that I take it to mean an outlook that is along the lines of "go with the flow" as every situation is greeted with a "ehh, who cares it doesn't really matter anyway"

>> No.4730351
File: 1.39 MB, 200x150, 1396375416478.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4730351

>>4730346

Hahaha, jesus, this board has gone to shit.

>> No.4730354

>>4730342
Im just going to point out that feelings are real and have nothing to with meaning(existential) or morality

>> No.4730357

>>4730341

>in being patient instead of angry, noble instead of petty, etc.

Oh I agree those are useful things but to me those seem more like personality traits that people are born with rather than morals in the sense I understand them.

>> No.4730365

>>4730346

>anon points to the good in virtue ethics
>lol. good goyim beta faggot

>> No.4730366

>>4730336
He does deliver spooky diatribes about the value of man and all that shit, but yes, his actions are inspirational.

>> No.4730369

>>4730350
Arent a lot of our reactions emotional rather than philosophical? What influence can nihilism have on those

>> No.4730371

>>4730357

I disagree that people are born with these, it's a self-cultivation thing.

>> No.4730377

>>4730369

I suppose, but consider people who have a completely different outlook on life once they are diagnosed with a disease that will kill them in a few years. I do think outlook on things can have a big effect on those reactions, even the emotional ones, it just needs to be strongly grounded in something.

>> No.4730392

>>4730371

To an extent sure, and I think it depends on the trait. For an example, tendency towards aggressive behavior seems to be hardcoded into some people's DNA while traits like being noble instead of petty I'm sure is a thing that can be cultivated more easily.

>> No.4730393

>>4730377
Good point, it's an interacting system of thoughts, emotions, behaviours, etc. I guess my question is, once you are truly nihilistic in worldview what do your emotional or aesthetic impulses look like? Because there would be little else to dictate your actions, forgetting environment for the moment

>> No.4730398
File: 96 KB, 500x613, 1390644182427.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4730398

>>4726168
Because I just ate a bowl of tuna'd spaghetti and it was gewd.

>> No.4730401

>>4726168
Because winter is over thank fucking god

>> No.4730402

>>4730392

>tendency towards aggressive behavior seems to be hardcoded into some people's DNA

This is some poisonous folk-philosophy of our time. Same kind of stuff as "people never change". Even on a biological view it's a bit reductive to say that high-level emergent traits are simply the sum of DNA.

>> No.4730404

>>4730401
Tfw the sun regains that dry warm mess of touchiness

>> No.4730405

>>4730393

I think those personal impulses would have to vary from person to person. I don't see how nihilism could be an all-encompassing worldview in that regard.

I mean a nihilistic outlook wouldn't affect a person's enjoyment of good music or things like that. At least I can't think why it would.

>> No.4730406

>>4730393
Not that guy, but that's only the case if you consider one's thoughts to be what leads to actions rather than mostly a posteriori justifications or merely something that coincides. Just because our thoughts are somehow connected to our actions doesn't mean that there's a causal relationship.

>> No.4730410

>>4730402
You're straw manning. He said 'tendency', he didn't deny the influence of environment

>> No.4730417

>>4730405
It would no doubt vary but there would perhaps be a common quality or characteristic among nihilists? It's like anti-cognitive behavioral therapy, it would have some outcome in your reactions.

>> No.4730429

>>4730402

Seems fairly logical to me. How else do you explain violent criminal offenders who keep repeating their crimes?

The prefrontal cortex plays a big part in controlling aggressive behavior. Naturally there's variety in the brains of humans across the gene pool, some people are bound of have deficiency in that part as others have deficiencies elsewhere.

That is not to say that I agree with the 'people never change' sentiment. Gene expression can after all be altered by the environment.

>> No.4730431

If you're a nihilist, why do you care if others are or not? That's like being a militant Buddhist.

>> No.4730433

>>4730406
I take your point. Personally I don't see a difference between us being aware of our actions as we make them or afterwards because there is no freedom either way. What is certain is that our brains control both our conscious experience and our actions, and thought patterns exist in the brain and alter the brain. Nihilism will change your reactions and experiences even if it isn't a conscious decision that causes the changes.

>> No.4730434

>>4730410

Fair enough. But forget environment too. In my view, it is foolish to treat human beings like simple organisms with traits borne out of DNA and their environment. It might seem like the best option if you're trying to arrive at some theoretical truth about high-level mental qualities of humans, but it sits in such direct contradiction to our experience that it's worthless. And this kind of biological determinism is used to justify all kinds of sloth and ignorance, nihilism notwithstanding.

>> No.4730440

>>4730417

Apathy is the only quality that comes to mind really.

>> No.4730441

>>4730434

Tony Soprano pls go

>> No.4730446

>>4730434
You will need to spell this out for me. What else is there but genome and environment? I agree that the brain is a sort of environment for itself, because of how recursive it is but it's ultimate causes are either genome or environment are they not?

>> No.4730449

>>4730434

>but it sits in such direct contradiction to our experience

Not that I necessarily disagree, but what do you mean by this?

>> No.4730456

>>4730434
An actual scientific approach to what it means to be human isn't worthless because it isn't compatible with the highly flawed and superstitious standard of folk psychology, anon.

>> No.4730459

>>4730440
Really? I would imagine that reckless behaviour, pleasure seeking and wild expressive tendencies would emerge after the erasure of the governing rules of conduct. A reversion to a more childlike state, if you like.

>> No.4730465

Because it's an "incomprehensible" position, just like fatalism.

Give me a reason why I should believe nihilism.

>> No.4730474

>>4730459

Yes I do think those two, hedonism and recklessness are qualities that would emerge to some degree in people who adopt such an outlook.

But the thing is that those emotional reactions that you mentioned earlier would still be something that would be hard to overcome. I can't imagine someone just stopping feeling empathy for other people because they became a nihilist, that feeling of empathy is so hardwired it would take some serious conviction for one's outlook to be able to affect things like that.

>> No.4730480

>>4730465

You already either believe in it or you don't. You either believe there is objective meaning/value or you don't.

>> No.4730482
File: 129 KB, 1428x1015, maslowabc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4730482

>>4730449
>>4730446
>>4730456

I hear all the time that we are just organisms who want to eat and sleep and reproduce and survive. While true at the low level, we fulfill these needs very easily in our society (well, for some of us).

Is that all that can be said for the needs of the human organism? That our bodies are fulfilled? No! We have needs of the mind: to know, to will, to understand, to evaluate... and we have this whole identity or character with its own emotions, drives, instincts. If we were simple biological organisms, we would feel fulfilled with the lowest-level needs met. But we are more. What is this more? It's up to you.

And are you going to turn to biology for the answer? Or are you going to turn to philosophy or self-examination?

>> No.4730486

>>4730474
We agree then. Empathy(among others) is a highly instinctive impulse and doesn't require a philosophical system to be appreciated and acted on.

>> No.4730491

>>4730456
>>4730482

And, yes, I realize the irony of posting Maslow in response to the "superstitious standard of folk psychology". But it illustrates the point well. You can keep on believing that biology is going to illustrate how to live- that everything about you is just the hand you were dealt. I have tried it and the answer was not satisfying.

>> No.4730496

>>4730480

the original question was "why aren't you a nihilist YET?" which means that at least the op believes that there is some reason or reasons for accepting a nihilist position. i am asking what those reasons are.

>> No.4730497

>>4730482
I fail to see how this answers anything. You're just saying 'examine the mind' of course that's worthwhile, but one shouldn't dismiss the roots of the mind when they wish to examine the trunk or foliage

>> No.4730501

>>4730497

No, I don't dismiss the roots, but I don't conflate the roots with the fruits. This whole biological tear started in response to somebody saying that character traits like anger are biologically determined.

>> No.4730522

>>4730501
Ok I think we're on the same page then. By the way you might find the recent research being made on the neocortex interesting. It appears to be entirely the same in design the whole brain over. There is a pattern of some 100 or so neurons that just repeats hundreds of millions if times. What's more is that the images they've procured of the synapses connecting these neuronal blocks look like computer grids. Perpendicular arrays of lines crossing the entire mind in an extremely organized fashion.

All this as an example of the deep importance of 'roots' in evaluating mind.

>> No.4730531

>>4730482
>>4730491
The emotional requirement for pleasant fictions doesn't validate those fictions beyond need fulfilment. You're approaching philosophy from the perspective of your needs rather than any will to truthfulness. I still don't see how your needs are an argument for dismissing an actual scientific approach to human life as worthless.

A scientific approach isn't contradictive to our experience, it's contradictive to our current interpretation of our experience.

>> No.4730541

>>4726168
there is two logical ways to see Nihilism.
Format 1:
Either it's a way of thought saying that it is objectively true that there is no objective truth. Which is a contradiction and therefor false.

Format 2:
Or it dismisses it's own existence(in addition everything else) making it nonexistent.

You are either 1, wrong, or 2, not a Nihilist.

>> No.4730551

>>4730541
Nihilism is negation
It doesn't posit negation as truth it simply negates would be truths

Moreover much of nihilism is to do with meaning and ethic not truth

>> No.4730562

>>4730551
there is no list of things Nihilism dismisses, it does posit negation in itself as truth.

What is the meaning behind being a Nihilist?

>> No.4730577

>>4730562
There doesnt need to be a list, it is a process, an action, a destruction of whatever comes before it. Its just skepticism for existential meaning.

The meaning of being a nihilist is the meaning of mind itself. Nihilism recognizes that the meaningfulness of mind does not exist outside it

>> No.4730591

>>4730577

if that's the case then isn't it a kind of idealism, a solipsism even? meaning it's subject to all the arguments against those

>> No.4730598

>>4730562
There is no one particular position that can clearly be referred to as nihilism.

Stop arguing about it before defining what you mean by nihilism.

>> No.4730600

>>4730577
if you are implying that when you say Nihilism you mean moral skepticism say so, but they are not the same thing.

>Nihilism recognizes that the meaningfulness of mind does not exist outside it
that is not skepticism, that is rejection.

>> No.4730602

Because I lost everything worth caring about.

I found new things. I love life. I love the person I'm becoming. I understood the shit around me, it was time?to move on.

I love how little effort I need to put into enjoying things now. It builds, builds, and fucking builds.

I bought my freedom with indifference, now I'm sailing on pure air and I fucking love it. Emptiness is only what you're willing to put into it.

Keep on truckin'.

>> No.4730603

>>4730591
I would say exactly the opposite. It recognizes the world outside of mind and realizes that that world does not share the meaningfulness of mind. Meaning something is a peculiarity of the mind.

>> No.4730606

>>4730600
They are the same in practice

>> No.4730609

>>4730598
I don't know, I just like to mess with the faithful in the thread.
It's OP who wanted arguing, and I'm supplying arguing.

Having philosophical belief which you define as Nihilism is fine. Being militant about something that isn't even defined well by it practitioners is retarded.

>> No.4730614

>>4730603

>meaning something is a peculiarity of the mind

I would think it was a peculiarity of language, not of mind. "Wherever meaning is, it ain't in the head."

By your formulation, we'd have to accept a kind of dualism between world and mind, meaning not being present in the former. But this closes the mind off to itself, as it can form no meaning outside itself.

And if mind is in the world, and meaning is in the mind, then meaning is in the world.

>> No.4730618

>>4730606
this is a thread about hardcore(indirectly) philosophy, practice have no place here.

>> No.4730629

>>4730614
The mind is part of the world
I don't suggest dualism
I suggest that minds are rather unique
Words are only meaningful to a mind and the mind has meaning which isn't linguistic such as sense

>> No.4730632

>>4730618
Then our conversation is over

>> No.4730637

>>4730632
what did you expect?

>> No.4730639

>>4730629

words are only meaningful to a mind, singular? how is a private language possible?

what makes sensation "meaningful"?

>i don't suggest dualism

you are doing just that by making a distinction between mind and world, in which meaning is possible in one but not in the other. that you don't think you're doing this doesn't matter.

>> No.4730646

>>4730639
A rock is not a tree because they have different qualities
Is that dualism?

The very definition of minds is existence which means something

Conversation is possible because the words mean the same thing to both minds

It isn't dualism in the least, minds are the world, they're a part of it

>> No.4730653

>>4730639
Sensation is meaningful because it is existence(brain) which means something(eg sight of tree)

>> No.4730669

>>4730646

>a rock is not a tree because they have different qualities. is that dualism?

yes, exactly. you have two different things. you're positing that mind and world have different qualities, i.e. they are different things. that is dualism. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

>the very definition of mind is existence which means something

hadn't heard that. refer to above article.

>conversation is possible because the words mean the same to to both minds

mean "the same thing" HOW?

>>4730653

wut? again, means something HOW? how is a bare perception of a tree "meaningful"?

>> No.4730687

>>4730669
>>4730669
Then we speak of infinitism not dualism

How does it mean something? The most convincing account I've read is what peirce says about the Triadic relation of the sign and signs dependence on each other to be meaningful

>> No.4730695

>>4730687

no. you're talking about dualism.

signs. units of language, dependent on other units of language to be meaningful. no mind need logically enter into the equation, but language is necessary.

>> No.4730701

Is nihilism a bad thing?

>> No.4730703

>>4730695
Signs are not all linguistic

It isn't dualism if you can divide the world infinitely, your obsession with meaning being the only important division is unfounded

>> No.4730720

>>4730703

>it isn't dualism if you can divide the world infinitely

dualism does not preclude the existence of other things. if there are different properties between mind and world then you have AT LEAST two separate things. there can be MORE things, like Spinoza's infinite modes of substance, of which Mind and Matter are, again, still TWO DISTINCT MODES--the only ones, according to Spinoza, cognizable by us.

just read the fucking article and learn something.

signs need not be words, but all signs need to be linguistic.

>> No.4730733

>>4730720
You're very annoying.

The mind is part of the world. It has a peculiar arrangement, as does a crystal. This arrangement creates meaning out of the relations between it's parts as a crystal creates a particular regularity. The duality of meaningfulness and other is not primary, it's just a distinction.

>> No.4730738

>>4730701
yes
(bad is a moral value, not very nihilistic and so on)

>> No.4730778

>edgy neckbeard in my philosophy class
>"hurr there is no truth"
>"Is that statement true?", I ask
>"yes of course it is u fcking sheep think 4 urself for once and turn off fox news LMAO"
>tips his fedora
>"So, then, truth exists?"
>"W-WAIT NO.. I-I GUESS THE STATEMENT ISN'T TRUE TECHNICALLY".
>So, then, truth exists?"
>mumbles something and starts sweating profusely
>whole class laughs at him
>all the bitches ask for my number
>currently getting my dick sucked by a 10/10 philosophy major chick with patrician taste

ama me anything

>> No.4730795

>>4730733

gadfly, bitch.

you began by saying mind had a property, "meaningfulness," which the world lacked. this is called property dualism. your new position is somewhat different, or at least appears so on the surface. i don't think it's tenable to claim on the one hand that mind has a property which the world lacks and then go on to claim that mind is nevertheless in the world, i.e. a property of the world.

>> No.4730803

>>4730778
haha tight is this true? sounds like somethin i would do too lol

>> No.4730831
File: 1.86 MB, 320x180, 1347842824305.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4730831

>>4730803

>> No.4730865

>>4730795
Why the fuck not
The world is composed of different things, one of them is the mind

>> No.4730874

>>4730865
if mind has meaningfulness and nothing else does that's DUALISM YOU CUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

>> No.4730875

>>4730865

I would mean the world contained a property which contained a property that it's container did not contain. Do you see the paradox, now?

>> No.4730894
File: 118 KB, 294x371, theyneverlisten.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4730894

>>4730874

>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

>> No.4730896

>>4730875
No I don't
The world contains fucking rocks
Th e rest of the world doesn't have the qualities of rocks
Is that a paradox

>> No.4730901

>>4726168

because i am not american.

>> No.4730904

>>4730896

The world has the quality "contains rocks."

I am not saying "all the world is meaning." I'm saying the world contains meaning, so long as "meaning" is a property of "mind" and "mind" is contained in the world. Get it?

>> No.4730908

>>4730904
Then we are saying the same thing, which is what I said in the beginning of this shitfest

>> No.4730914

Most of you aren't even nihlists. Nihilism is more of a human condition, something that's happening in culture, not some philosophical school you can adhere to or something. Everything that's life-negating is some form of nihilism, like Buddhism or Christianity

>> No.4730915

>>4730908
>I would say exactly the opposite. It recognizes the world outside of mind and realizes that that world does not share the meaningfulness of mind. Meaning something is a peculiarity of the mind.

No it isn't.

>> No.4730932

>>4730915
A+ post
Great contribution

>> No.4730934

>mfw almost everyone ITT is using the word 'nihilism' wrong
fucking /lit/ and philosophy. people here discussing philosophy like they know what they're talking about, it's awful.

>> No.4730938

>>4730915
Yes it is

>> No.4731072

>>4730938

>the world does not share the meaningfulness of mind

unpack that for yourself.

you're claiming a number of contrary and sometimes just incoherent things and maintaining that they all hold together. they can't. do some more thinking.

how does mind "contain" meaning? this was my biggest problem with your whole argument. the mind cannot "contain" meaning independently of either a world that it can comprehend or a system of signs in which it can "manifest" that meaning. it doesn't make sense that the mind can "make" meaning separate from the world. in this sense, the world "shares" meaning with mind. the world is all there is to be meaningful about.
>>4730932
and stop same-fagging, it's pathetic.

>> No.4731079

>>4730934

enlighten us, then.

>> No.4731084

>>4731072
>that world
>the world outside if mind
Perhaps reading what you quote would help
If you'd like to understand meaning I suggest taking a course in formal logic

>> No.4731105

The concept of not believing anything just because is fucking stupid as shit. Why wouldn't I believe P is P and ~P isn't P?

>> No.4731108

>>4731084

i could suggest the same for you, on both counts.

logic doesn't give you meaning, it gives you the valid relations between (presumably meaningful) concepts.

>the world outside of mind

right. you've consistently argued that only mind "has" meaning, as in separate from the world "outside" it. this isn't tenable for all of the reasons i've already stated.

>> No.4731123

>>4731108
The study of logic explains how meaning arises
And it's entirely tenable, you just don't understand what meaning is, or that something which is different than it's environment is still a part of that environment

>> No.4731153

>>4731123

>>4731123

>the study of logic explains how meaning arises

no, linguistics does that. if you want to follow the logical positivists, the actual claim is that a proposition without a referent is meaningless. that is to say, absent referential CONTENT, meaning isn't present. this is not the same as to say that the logical form of the proposition is itself which gives it meaning. what would that even mean?

You don't seem to be aware of the metaphysical and epistemological commitments you've made, which is why you're able to willy-nilly claim all kinds of contradictory things without realizing they're so.

The mind doesn't "contain" meaning. Meaning is something distinct from the mind, or any individual mind, though the mind can register it.

>> No.4731163

If u a nihilist then why u care?

>> No.4731166

>>4731153
The real problem is that you can't think for yourself and are filtering everything I say through the various philosophical ideas youve been taught and attributing their lack of coherence with each other to my argument, making our discussion rather pointless

>> No.4731173

>>4731166

Your last four posts have simply been you claiming I'm not understanding you, without any sort of response to the substance of my own posts.

It doesn't matter if I'm recreating a received philosophical position or not--in either case, it is a direct challenge to your own position. Deal with it or shut the fuck up.

>> No.4731182

>>4731166

And for the record, I don't follow the logical positivists conception of meaning. Their position is actually more sympathetic to your own, which you would realize if you just fucking thought about it for five seconds.

>> No.4731183

>>4731173
I'm tired of repeating the same idea to have you attempt to filter it through some new arbitrary lens you don't bother to justify as being necessary
We've moved on from the idea to your peculiar inability to grasp it, which while amusing is not terribly interesting

>> No.4731197

There's no point.

>> No.4731200

>>4731183

Which lens am I using? Do tell.

I've grasped your idea about meaning. It's false. I've explained why it's false. That is not the same thing as not understanding what you mean. Get over yourself.

>> No.4731201

>>4731183

Your idea about logic is also false. I've explained why.

Your idea about dualism is also false. Again, I've explained why.

Self-delusion is a terrible habit to let yourself fall into.

>> No.4731339

Love prompts reason for my life because of the draw on my heart that it is.

There is no purpose beyond joy