Nihilism from Necessity

Gravity = a product of mass - ordering veering towards the singularity.

It requires matter, which is a form of ordering.
Each material type being a slower, in relation to man (as observer), pattern.
The faster, in relation to the observer, rates of interactivity (pasterns) are called energy.

The rate of this activity determine the material's properties: color, texture, sound, behavior, dimensions, consistency and so on.

With entropy matter is being eliminated....as all forms of ordering are deteriorating (attrition due to interactivity) towards complexity and randomness - both being variants of what we all chaos.
Chaos, or absolute randomness, would be no matter, no energies, no life....total complexity, where no patterns exist.
Randomness is the absence of patterns.

Mass attracts, with gravity, in the same way intelligence charms, and/or beauty seduces, and/or symmetry inspires....or in how POWER attracts without intending to.
To intend is to display need...and so when a desperate man-child intends to seduce/attract/inspire/charm, it achieves the opposite effect.

Satyr seems to backtrack now on his claims, for years folks, that entropy is the natural state of the universe.

I will interpret his backtracking, admitting that gravity is the opposing force of entropy, as his concession.

The rest of his off topic, personal attacks, merely represent his lashing out in search of a weakness that he can no longer hope to find.


Anfang has proven to be Satyr's little bitch. Satyr makes an excuse "They do not follow me but my content." This disassociation is a ruse, as Satyr tries to distance himself from his own mistakes and false premises.

Quite pathetic.

Satyr is a hypocrite to chastise others about staying on topic, while he barely does. What a pathetic piece of shit this loser is.

Satyr wrote:

With entropy matter is being eliminated....as all forms of ordering are deteriorating (attrition due to interactivity) towards complexity and randomness - both being variants of what we all chaos.

This represents your favoritism of chaos, over order. This actually admits something you have in common with Joker, rather than opposed. You admit here that you are an agent of chaos, not order. You favor entropy, for example, over gravity.

Degeneration and decay, over regeneration and growth.

So let's get to the heart of this matter.

Most people correctly associate the idea of "Nihilism" to negation, as nihilism is a derived word from "Annihilation". But what exactly is being annulled and destroyed? What is this function and its representation? Must nihilism express an emotional reaction? And must this emotional reaction automatically be "negative" to coincide with the "negative" operation of annihilation?

Say no to many of these questions. Satyr and his drones have to apply bandaids and quick fixes to their ideology. Satyr, over the years, have extended his definition of nihilism to "positive nihilism, negative nihilism, masculine nihilism, and feminine nihilism". To me, these are all redundancies. Let's just focus on "plain nihilism". Let's investigate what nihilism is all about.


You're hungry. You haven't eaten in 10 days. You're starving. Is your hunger automatically "negative"? Objectively? No, instead, consider your hunger as objectively "just is". That is your state of affairs, your status. It is neither "good nor bad", "positive nor negative". Although, subjectively, almost everybody will agree that to an organism, hunger is bad and negative. And from this subjective emotional state, nihilism is a product of the "badness and negativity" of the feeling of hunger.

It is from this hunger, along with the need to eat and survive, that "Nihilism" seeks to change the world "as it is", to suit the personal, subjective agenda of the hunger organism.

And so the hungry organism, you, use your imagination. You plan to go to the store, buy some food, and eat it. And this plan of yours, this goal, is your ideal. And it is your idealism. You have an alternative magic fantasy world in your head, representing your imagination. And you use your imagination to facilitate your need, your hunger, and your satiation.

Satyr has made numerous errors. Must your goal, your ideal, your imagination automatically be "negative" to reflect the "negative" emotional response of your starvation?

I don't think so.......I doubt it. Instead what people are calling "negative" only reflect the subjective value judgments of the organism. There is no objective value, here. It is not enough to claim that "all hunger is bad, negative, nihilistic, and evil". Instead, what is being passed over, is the method of these values, what is valued, and how values are subjective, or objective.

The passing over of these value judgments represent what leads to this error about nihilism.

I will connect nihilism to organic, biological, needs, first.......and then work from that premise, giving me the superior interpretation of the phenomenon.

Æon wrote:

So let's get to the heart of this matter.

Most people correctly associate the idea of "Nihilism" to negation, as nihilism is a derived word from "Annihilation".  But what exactly is being annulled and destroyed?  What is this function and its representation?  Must nihilism express an emotional reaction?  And must this emotional reaction automatically be "negative" to coincide with the "negative" operation of annihilation?

Say no to many of these questions.  Satyr and his drones have to apply bandaids and quick fixes to their ideology.  Satyr, over the years, have extended his definition of nihilism to "positive nihilism, negative nihilism, masculine nihilism, and feminine nihilism".  To me, these are all redundancies.  Let's just focus on "plain nihilism".  Let's investigate what nihilism is all about.


You're hungry.  You haven't eaten in 10 days.  You're starving.  Is your hunger automatically "negative"?  Objectively?  No, instead, consider your hunger as objectively "just is".  That is your state of affairs, your status.  It is neither "good nor bad", "positive nor negative".  Although, subjectively, almost everybody will agree that to an organism, hunger is bad and negative.  And from this subjective emotional state, nihilism is a product of the "badness and negativity" of the feeling of hunger.

It is from this hunger, along with the need to eat and survive, that "Nihilism" seeks to change the world "as it is", to suit the personal, subjective agenda of the hunger organism.

And so the hungry organism, you, use your imagination.  You plan to go to the store, buy some food, and eat it.  And this plan of yours, this goal, is your ideal.  And it is your idealism.  You have an alternative magic fantasy world in your head, representing your imagination.  And you use your imagination to facilitate your need, your hunger, and your satiation.

Satyr has made numerous errors.  Must your goal, your ideal, your imagination automatically be "negative" to reflect the "negative" emotional response of your starvation?

I don't think so.......I doubt it.  Instead what people are calling "negative" only reflect the subjective value judgments of the organism.  There is no objective value, here.  It is not enough to claim that "all hunger is bad, negative, nihilistic, and evil".  Instead, what is being passed over, is the method of these values, what is valued, and how values are subjective, or objective.

The passing over of these value judgments represent what leads to this error about nihilism.

I will connect nihilism to organic, biological, needs, first.......and then work from that premise, giving me the superior interpretation of the phenomenon.

Ultimately, they're just words, he has his jargon, we may adopt it or discard it, but reality remains fundamentally as it is.

A need isn't inherently negative, or anything, a need is just a need.

How we think about it, and how we want to think about it, is up to us.

I would call need negative in the sense that we want to fill it, we're dissatisfied with the way things are, as they are.

I would call it positive in the sense that need animates us, makes us who we are, gives us opportunities to grow/strengthen.

An ideal is positive in the sense that it seeks to satisfy the need, to make the world, or a portion of it, you, whole, it's negative in the sense that it partly negates the world as it is, there's multiple ways of looking at it.

For me, I would call need negative, even though it's not entirely so, and I would call an ideal positive, even though it's not entirely so.

An ideal only becomes totally, or largely negative, when it's taken to the point of absurdity, ridiculousness, when it only offers temporary happiness, at the expense of totally doing away with the world, and making it much difficult to live in, in the long run, that's what could be referred to as nihilism, and that's what I refer to it as, although you could just as easily refer to it as somethingism, or delusion, fantasy, all sorts of other words.

That people here use a particular jargon has to do with history, certain thinkers they were inspired by and such, but we do not have to use it if we don't want to, other words might suit us and the phenomena in question, better.

Words are utilitarian, like that.

Whenever you move to something, positive, you're moving away from something else, negative, you can't have one, without the other. So what we have here is positive/negative and negative/positive, this part is positive and that's negative, that is negative and this part is positive.

He and his entourage are in the habit of calling some things positive, and some things negative, some things tarded, and other things not tarded, and some of it seems justified, and some of it seems contentious, and the fact that some of them use shaming tactics, whenever someone has an honest and well thought out difference of opinion, regardless of whether that opinion is ultimately correct or not, is an indication of insecurity.

It's dogma.

However, I appreciate Anfang's reply, he has given me a well thought out response from his own head, and he has not resorted to shaming tactics to "win" the argument. I look forward to replying to his challenge, when I have more energy.

It's pretty obvious that an individual, particular organism can and will call its own hunger bad, negative, hurtful, suffering, evil, etc. And from this subjective value judgment, its need representing hunger, and its ideal representing satiation, will become dissatisfied with the world "as it is". Because from the perspective of the hungry organism, it must annul existence "as it is", primarily located around the source of its suffering, which is hunger.

But this is just a moment of time, reflecting the "negativity". After the mammal hunts down another animal, eats it alive, then its hunger is filled, temporarily.

Must nihilism then be automatically likened to life hatred, negativity, weakness, and "ideals" used in pejorative sense, as Satyr and his lackeys are prone to do?

No, because hunger represents mere moments of an organisms life and consciousness. What is hunger in the "objective" sense, is it still negative? Objectively, hunger represents a deficiency, a lack of material property, and a "bad feeling and emotion" consciously. Because the organism does grow and regenerate, consider a baby, infant, or child. It grows, as a whole. It is in a regenerative and growing phase of a life cycle.

To use nihilism only in a negative sense, falsely presumes that hunger defines the organism, rather than satiation. It is focusing on the suffering, rather than the fulfillment. This is not to say and claim that food is always forthcoming, or that energy is not required to survive. Because it is. But it is to look at only certain parts of consciousness and life, selectively, to protect that dogma and agenda.

And the agenda is becoming too clear. And the dogma must be defended. They have too much at stake.

They have forgotten the context of proper philosophy. After everybody looks at the whole, the generality, or better yet the objective universe, then we can begin to admit that proper "Nihilism" is not necessarily tied to life annulment, compared to the hungry organism who uses its idealism and imagination, to find food and feed....

But I must admit it is nice to be right, and Satyr wrong, and rub it in his face as he so often likes to do to others....

It is nice to bully the bully, once in a while.

Satyr's pro aristocratic noble elitism if it existed in the modern world would be nothing more than a modern variant of fascism.

What is interesting about fascism is that it is nothing more than conservative progressivism.

Satyr is a progressivist to his very core so naturally if there is anything he doesn't like he refers to it as nihilism. Still, I think the deeper implications of the word is lost on him entirely.

It's misleading to talk about generalities as either-or, only order or only chaos. Order and chaos signify values of individuals, and the means to acquiring power, usually referring only to social power.

The misconception is this.

The most common definition, and the way nihilism is routinely defined around these philosophy circles, is "life hatred". This is the misnomer. I wouldn't say that an organism needs to "hate life" in order to want to change reality "as it is". Because if these two popular definitions were true, then wouldn't all changes, and I mean *ALL* change, be a product of "hatred"? No, the terms are too emotionally laden, and "hate" has too many pitfall connotations to it.

Instead of immediately connecting nihilism to "life annulment" and "life hatred", it should instead be connected to "changing reality as it is". Because it is not until these changes take place, that anybody could place a value judgment upon the actions, and call it "positive/negative".


Any retorts about this? Any disagreements?