Nihilism Reexamined

Here's my little take on nihilism -

Nihilism happens when man takes ideas and ideals as substitutions for reality rather than as representations of it. In other words, delusion, emotion governing reason and imagination. Nihilism is more than one instance of delusion, it's institutionalized/organized schizophrenia. The most seductive forms of nihilism are coherent and at least internally consistent, while making big promises it's of course unable to fulfill. Nihilism can be divided into positive and negative variants. The world is so good/will be remade good, and thus, you don't have to worry, or the world is so evil/will be remade evil, and thus, you don't have to worry. Either way, the end result is the same - cremation of care. For me, nihilism denies reality, not fantasy, although you could define it inversely if you're so inclined, as it was defined in 19th century Russia.

Where I differ a little with KT philosophy perhaps, is I emphasize the universality of nihilism. I do not believe modern man, or poor, weak men, are necessarily more likely to be nihilists than ancient man, or rich strong men, and here's why - while the former has more opportunity to disconnect from reality, the latter has more reason to disconnect from reality. Therefore, we can find nihilism present since the dawn of history, and we can find nihilism amongst the impoverished and the affluent. It has taken many forms, in the past, it was more overt, in the present, it's more covert, making it all the more insidious and subversive. While paganism was perhaps more in tune with nature and worldly than Abrahamic religions, it was also more superstitious.

Nihilism is universal, we all do it, what separates the nihilist from the, whatever, empiricist, I'll call it, is degrees, not absolutes, like anything. We all do it because existence is painful, even if you've lived a sheltered life, it'll only make you weaker, and less able to deal with pain when it finally does come, and it will, if you live long enough. Negative thoughts are connected with negative emotions, that's how are neurology works, negative emotions are what stress us the most, more than positive ones, they get us moving, but there's only so much we can take, some have a higher tolerance than others, and thus, there's a need for numbing, inebriating agents, whether it be drugs and alcohol, or nihilistic philosophies and religions.

Death is something unconscious creatures don't have to deal with. The fact that no matter what we do, all ends in oblivion, and only some semblance of ourselves continues, if that, in the form of biology/culture, torments. If chimps could think that far into the future, it'd torment them too, and they may not be able to find sufficient reason to carry on the struggle, knowing that, because evolution hasn't programmed them, or us (some more than others) with the ability to live for something other than ourselves, so nihilism might be most prominent among those incapable of empathy/sympathy, or finding value in otherness, and also those more aware of their ultimate destination in the grave and demise.

Nihilism is a universal experience, we've all succumbed at one time or another, to secular or religious nihilism, and if some tragedy were to befall us, who knows, we may succumb again. Nihilism causes us to compensate for our existential woes. In modernity, the tendency has not been to revere and worship the Gods, to cast spells, pray and make sacrifices, to think more of the "afterworld", as it has been in the past, but to inebriate oneself, with consumerism, or various ideologies, from left to the right, and everything in between and outside, like trans-humanism, the erroneous notion that man will one day concoct biological and social panaceas, that'll cure us of whatever ails us, and even life/death itself.

For me, the right is just as guilty of deluding itself as the left, with fantastic visions of a totally superior race descending from the heavens, that will conquer the world, and usher in an age of peace and prosperity for themselves, once rid of all the others, or forever subjugating otherness. The idea of total divergence, that only whites are human, totally distinct from blacks, Asians and native Americans, is no less delusional than believing we all have the same essence, or that we're born a blank slate. Man must be weary of nihilism in all it's forms, but, and here's the real kicker, it's opposite, empiricism or realism, is or can be a kind of nihilism itself. Nihilism is with us to stay, it's not going anywhere, it's always been with us and likely always will be with us, and to think man, as a species or as individuals could ever be rid of it, is itself a kind of wishful thinking and nihilism itself, paradoxically.

We must accept that we all delude ourselves sometimes, I catch myself doing it occasionally, though probably a lot less than the majority. As a thinker, I've had to come to accept this part of myself, I mitigate it, regulate it, rather than try to eliminate it completely, as if such a state of pure rationality could ever exist. However, I think nihilism is deadly and will ultimately be our undoing, it's perhaps the number one conundrum of the 21st century, if not the whole of the history, and you can see it manifesting in consumerism, drunkenness, religious revivals and perhaps most frighteningly, in transhumanism, those who think they can remake man and the world overnight into something totally new and superior, perfect even.

Nihilism is both humble and proud at the same time, it's born of intense fear and dread, but then it lies to itself about itself - I have a soul, or I can become an ubermensch, and those who're talented but fear life/death, may even be more inclined to run away with delusions of grandiosity than those who're average, mediocre. So you could say I have a more, 3 dimensional view of nihilism, than some others we've read throughout the years. Can man ever learn to accept his limitations, and work within them, neither cowering in the cave like a brute, or thinking himself divine, or are we doomed???

I'm inclined to believe the latter is the case.

There is an Active Nihilism or an Organic Nihilism, where the rejection of all conventional values and the acknowledgement of the inherent meaninglessness of life is the starting point for self-assertion of one's own goals, and there is a Passive nihilism, where that inherentness and the death of god, etc. is the end point - characterized by fatalism, rejection, paralysis, withdrawal, defeat, and suicide (literal or figurative), resignation into or resigned identification with the abs. restoration of future order in the form of a saviour god/technological singularity - apocalypse,,, or, total ego-death and dissolution in the abs. void - nirvana, secular humanism, etc.



Nihilism:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I would add this....

Nihilism <========> Empiricism <=========> Solipsism

I think that nihilism is diametrically opposed to solipsism. Solipsism is the state of mind where the subject is totally, absolutely ingrained in a state of "itself" and its own affairs. Thoughts and ideas completely replace reality for the solipsist. To the hardcore solipsist, everything is a dream. And there is no "real life", no reality.

Lyssa wrote:

Nihilism:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Shut the fuck up, bitch. Just because Satyr thinks for you, and you copy-paste his thoughts and definitions, doesn't mean that others will or should.

Nobody gives a shit about Satyr's pathetic, idiotic, retarded definitions. Some of us define the world for ourselves, and have higher authority...

Neon wrote:

Nobody gives a shit about Satyr's pathetic, idiotic, retarded definitions.

Eyes can speak for himself, turk.

Neon wrote:

Some of us define the world for ourselves, and have higher authority...

Some of us, that is moi, don't feel ashamed of doing menial work, and digging through dirt and history, to affirm as much of the past with the present.

You remain drenched in the sound of your own moaning, meemememme...

Lyssa wrote:

Eyes can speak for himself, turk.

I know, but you cannot, moron.

Lyssa wrote:

Some of us, that is moi, don't feel ashamed of doing menial work, and digging through dirt and history, to affirm as much of the past with the present.

You remain drenched in the sound of your own moaning, meemememme...

Piss off to simpler, easier threads, more along your level of thought and reasoning.

Try something in the dungeon, retard, where you and Satyr belong. Your quality has been exposed, with Satyr around, your brain spew is disgusting. Best keep your brain closed until help arrives.

Æon wrote:

I would add this....

Nihilism <========> Empiricism <=========> Solipsism

I think that nihilism is diametrically opposed to solipsism.  Solipsism is the state of mind where the subject is totally, absolutely ingrained in a state of "itself" and its own affairs.  Thoughts and ideas completely replace reality for the solipsist.  To the hardcore solipsist, everything is a dream.  And there is no "real life", no reality.

Lyssa wrote:

Nihilism:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Shut the fuck up, bitch.  Just because Satyr thinks for you, and you copy-paste his thoughts and definitions, doesn't mean that others will or should.

Nobody gives a shit about Satyr's pathetic, idiotic, retarded definitions.  Some of us define the world for ourselves, and have higher authority...

Interesting.

I would say solipsism is in between nihilism on the left and empiricism on the right. Additionally there's degrees of empiricism, some more relative/subjective, others more absolute/objective, I veer towards the former more than the latter (like the difference between say a David Hume on the one hand, and a Thomas Reid on the other). The solipsist denies the world as it is, but he doesn't go as far as propose an alternative to it, like we're all one, and the one is God, or what looks like animals competing over resources for evolutionary purposes, is actually the result of man consuming the fruit from the tree of knowledge.

Lyssa wrote:

There is an Active Nihilism or an Organic Nihilism, where the rejection of all conventional values and the acknowledgement of the inherent meaninglessness of life is the starting point for self-assertion of one's own goals, and there is a Passive nihilism, where that inherentness and the death of god, etc. is the end point - characterized by fatalism, rejection, paralysis, withdrawal, defeat, and suicide (literal or figurative), resignation into or resigned identification with the abs. restoration of future order in the form of a saviour god/technological singularity - apocalypse,,, or, total ego-death and dissolution in the abs. void - nirvana, secular humanism, etc.



Nihilism:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

There's all sorts of nihilisms, or denialisms.

Lately I've been defining nihilism as negation of the real, or a substantial portion of it, and the affirmation of an ideal, completely at odds with the real, which is more in line with how Nietzsche defined nihilism, and diametrically opposed to how anarcho-nihilists in 19th century Russia defined nihilism, which is more in line with what you're saying here/now. However, you could say nihilism proper is the negation of everything, solipsism, or, taking it even a step further, the negation of both metaphysical selfishness and otherness, so that all one is left with is appearances, macro and microcosmic mirages. Finally, you could take it one last step further and say, nihilism is both the rejection of appearances and reality, even the rejection of the rejection of appearances and reality, the reduction of all that is known and unknown down to nil. Gorgias was the first, and possibly the last, to endorse such a negation. So, in other words, there are many nihilisms, many denials, some of them seemingly more rational than others, but only one absolute nihilism. You could even say atheism is theistic nihilism.

Solipsism merely redefines "reality" as the self. Solipsism is not world denying. Solipsism is more about "self affirmation" even though this will seem delusional to other subjects. Because solipsism is an immense self centric, egotism.

I think we should be more careful when using the word nihilism, it gets thrown around here and elsewhere a lot. For example, most people here are ethical and theistic nihilists, additionally they deny metaphysical absolutes, but then they proceed badmouth nihilism. They say, well, it's obvious those things don't exist, so there's no need to deny them, but I think that's erroneous, because regardless of how traded it is to believe in those things or not, a lot of people do, which means there is a need to deny them, just as there's a need for the word atheism. So we need to be specific when attacking, or defending nihilism, what kind of nihilism are we attacking or defending.

Æon wrote:

Solipsism merely redefines "reality" as the self.  Solipsism is not world denying.  Solipsism is more about "self affirmation" even though this will seem delusional to other subjects.  Because solipsism is an immense self centric, egotism.

Solipsism is an affirmation of the self/mind and the denial of bodies and other minds.

Divergense wrote:

I think we should be more careful when using the word nihilism, it gets thrown around here and elsewhere a lot. For example, most people here are ethical and theistic nihilists, additionally they deny metaphysical absolutes, but then they proceed badmouth nihilism. They say, well, it's obvious those things don't exist, so there's no need to deny them, but I think that's erroneous, because regardless of how traded it is to believe in those things or not, a lot of people do, which means there is a need to deny them, just as there's a need for the word atheism. So we need to be specific when attacking, or defending nihilism, what kind of nihilism are we attacking or defending.

Problem is, around here, if anybody defines nihilism contrarily or in a different way than Satyr, then his lackeys Lyssa and Anfang will attack you with dozens of insults, "retard", "turd", "autistic", whatever. This is their defense mechanism, how they defend Satyr's definitions. If nihilism is defined and explained in different manners, or absolutism is not written pejoratively, then they will attack predictably.

I want to reexamine nihilism and absolutism as well. This deserves some philosophical inquiry....

Æon wrote:

Divergense wrote:

I think we should be more careful when using the word nihilism, it gets thrown around here and elsewhere a lot. For example, most people here are ethical and theistic nihilists, additionally they deny metaphysical absolutes, but then they proceed badmouth nihilism. They say, well, it's obvious those things don't exist, so there's no need to deny them, but I think that's erroneous, because regardless of how traded it is to believe in those things or not, a lot of people do, which means there is a need to deny them, just as there's a need for the word atheism. So we need to be specific when attacking, or defending nihilism, what kind of nihilism are we attacking or defending.

Problem is, around here, if anybody defines nihilism contrarily or in a different way than Satyr, then his lackeys Lyssa and Anfang will attack you with dozens of insults, "retard", "turd", "autistic", whatever.  This is their defense mechanism, how they defend Satyr's definitions.  If nihilism is defined and explained in different manners, or absolutism is not written pejoratively, then they will attack predictably.

I want to reexamine nihilism and absolutism as well.  This deserves some philosophical inquiry....

Forget him, he's a sophist, admittedly so, and he refers to himself in the 3rd person, as if to say, I'm not really me.

You and I are here for the truth, and to develop a unique perspective and share it with others.

He has an agenda, to propagate Nietzscheanism, no matter what the cost.

He'll tweak it, update it for modern audiences, but he'll never question its core premises.

He'll never make concessions, and you'll never hear him say, I think so and so is such, but I'm not sure, rather, he'll jump up and down, and wave his arms in the air like an ape.

My advice is to ignore him whenever possible.

As for his entourage, if that's really what they are, I haven't exchanged with them sufficiently to formulate an opinion, good or bad, if what you say about them is indeed the case, then I'd ignore them too, whenever possible.

Good advice