Nihilism from Necessity

In this thread I will put forward and argue on behalf of a claim.

Nihilism is wrought from necessity and biological needs, not from "hatred" and resentment. Currently the idea of nihilism is misconstrued as "bad" or "negative", associated from the hatred and resentment brought about by need. But this is incorrect. Needs do not have to result in hatred or resentment, in order to produce ideals. Because ideals are neither good nor bad. They just are. They simply reflect core needs and deficiencies, nothing else. Instead this popular idea of "hatred and resentment" are brought about by the common ideal (God) and the religious underpinnings of judaeo christian theology.

I don't have to "hate" anything to be hungry. My hunger is not a product of "hating" the world as it is. And my ideal, my goal to find food and consume it, is also emotionally neutral. No "hatred, negativity, love, positivity" required.

Instead what "love/hate, positive/negative" represent are value judgments after the fact. You can argue that I "love myself" to find food and eat it, in order to continue life. You can argue that I "hate myself and my weakness of hunger", since my body is metabolizing nutrients and "decaying". But these are small minded, petty arguments.

Value judgments are different. They are not necessarily correlated to the base needs and desires of the organism.

Instead value judgments are a posteriori reflections of the world, from the future. Value judgments are primarily made between present and future, the difference of how the world is, should become, and will become. Once these differences are properly understood, it wouldn't make sense to say that organic hunger, and feeding, is necessarily one or the other, either-or, "positive or negative". Adding such a context cannot become associated with the "positivity of upholding life by surviving".

I will argue a disconnect here.


Just because I am hungry, doesn't mean I "hate life", that hunger is a product or cause of hatred, or that satiating hunger is "positive". Instead these terms commonly associate with emotional claims, not rational claims. Love and hate, reflect emotion. Positive and negative, reflect rationality. All I really need to do is propose neutrality. Hunger just is. It ebbs and flows, as hunger occurs due to metabolism, feeding, satiation, from the pain of hunger to the pleasure of feeding. I don't need to input the ideas of love/hate, positive/negative, into this equation.

These value judgments can become, and probably should become, separated from their cause.

Because "hunger" is not exclusive. It requires context. It is a biological need associated with many other corresponding needs, for example, a specific diet. A herbivore is not a carnivore, and will not have the same type of hunger, categorically. Thus it is much easier to see the simple difference between one type of hunger, and feeding, from the next.

A lion does not look at blades of grass with hunger as a gazelle would....a gazelle would not look at other mammals with hunger as a lion would.

Now that is where the value judgments really apply..........

Satyr and most of his lackeys would interlude upon my logic.

They would claim that an organism cannot be hungry without "hating life", or at least judging hunger as a "negative". And this is false. Because it is unnecessary to interlude with value judgments at such an early stage of existing. My position is that value judgments arrive much later, due to intelligence and sophistication, and can hold off any positive/negative distinction with neutrality.

I don't need to pass judgment upon the world, to be hungry, and to sate my hunger. You may counter argue that "You must make a judgment to admit your hunger." But this is false, because intelligence evolves after hunger, not before it. Or at least they evolve coinciding with each other.

To have pain, to suffer, from hunger, is itself a form of judgment. Likening this to hatred and resentiment is simply unjustified.

Conclusion,
I don't need to hate myself, just because I'm hungry......

Here is Satyr, Lyssa, and their cult followers logic:

1. I am in flux, decaying in entropy, reflected by metabolic rate that digests food and supplies nutrients.
2. Eventually I become hungry, which causes suffering. My body is lacking nutrients, resulting in need.
3. I need to eat, to sate my hunger.
4. My starvation represents suffering, suffering represents need and self hatred, resentment.
5. I resent and hate myself for being hungry and suffering. My salvation is an ideal, a goal.
6. In my brain, my imagination "changes" the world, to one where I am not hungry.
7. This inner world is my imagination, and I use my imagination to produce a plan.
8. I imagine going to the store, buying food, cooking it, eating it.
9. My imagination represents my idealism, my self hatred, my resentment for the world "as it is".

Do you see how Satyr and his lackey's rationalize the world? To me, these conclusions don't follow. Why must I "hate and resent" myself for being hungry? Does suffering necessarily require self hatred? I doubt it. I disagree.

But this is the predominant theme promoted around here. Satyr counter argues that I'm talking about "negative nihilism, not positive nihilism". But does this really make a difference, or isn't this just a bandaid applied to Satyr's lapse in reasoning??? Isn't this a de facto, post hoc argument, made to cover up a glaring flaw???

Aeon wrote:

They would claim that an organism cannot be hungry without "hating life", or at least judging hunger as a "negative".

The attributes positive and negative, in the context you have taken them from, have nothing to do with 'good' nor 'bad'.
That 'negative' doesn't mean that it must or should be avoided. It is not a value judgement.

Anfang wrote:

The attributes positive and negative, in the context you have taken them from, have nothing to do with 'good' nor 'bad'.
That 'negative' doesn't mean that it must or should be avoided. It is not a value judgement.

It is a value judgment after you add context to the presumptions.

Æon wrote:

Anfang wrote:

The attributes positive and negative, in the context you have taken them from, have nothing to do with 'good' nor 'bad'.
That 'negative' doesn't mean that it must or should be avoided. It is not a value judgement.

It is a value judgment after you add context to the presumptions.

No.
You made a mistake.
You didn't understand that it's not a value judgement.

If there were no entropy then there would be no life.
If there were no needs then there would be no life.

You made the mistake, by falsely presuming and projecting entropy where it does not belong.

Incorrect, life regenerates and degenerates. To focus on degeneration does not do biology justice. You, and Satyr, only focus on the "negative" half of existence and use that as your premise, your norm, your starting point. I do neither, reflecting a more sophisticated, evolved mind. I take neither the positive nor negative as my base point. I investigate both premises first.

Life can be argued as a regenerative, growing, thriving phenomenon, not one of decay. You refuse to view life in the "positive".

And you're wrong about value judgments. Life is neither positive nor negative. Now admit it.

Æon wrote:

Here is Satyr, Lyssa, and their cult followers logic:

1. I am in flux, decaying in entropy, reflected by metabolic rate that digests food and supplies nutrients.
2. Eventually I become hungry, which causes suffering.  My body is lacking nutrients, resulting in need.
3. I need to eat, to sate my hunger.
4. My starvation represents suffering, suffering represents need and self hatred, resentment.
5. I resent and hate myself for being hungry and suffering.  My salvation is an ideal, a goal.
6. In my brain, my imagination "changes" the world, to one where I am not hungry.
7. This inner world is my imagination, and I use my imagination to produce a plan.
8. I imagine going to the store, buying food, cooking it, eating it.
9. My imagination represents my idealism, my self hatred, my resentment for the world "as it is".

Do you see how Satyr and his lackey's rationalize the world?  To me, these conclusions don't follow.  Why must I "hate and resent" myself for being hungry?  Does suffering necessarily require self hatred?  I doubt it.  I disagree.

But this is the predominant theme promoted around here.  Satyr counter argues that I'm talking about "negative nihilism, not positive nihilism".  But does this really make a difference, or isn't this just a bandaid applied to Satyr's lapse in reasoning???  Isn't this a de facto, post hoc argument, made to cover up a glaring flaw???

Excellent display of how clueless you are.

Thanks.

Aeon wrote:

And you're wrong about value judgments. Life is neither positive nor negative. Now admit it.

Life is a positive in relation to the negative of the ever increasing entropy of our known universe.

Quote :

Incorrect, life regenerates and degenerates.

No, life is about ordering, the increase in entropy doesn't require life to take place.
Ordering - That's its distinguishing quality. Degeneration, an increase of entropy is not.

That's it.
Carry on with you plan, that you made a few days ago, of posting less and being more laconic.

I see that Satyr and his lackey's cannot form a proper counter argument, as expected.

Watch how Anfang presumed "ever increasing entropy of our known universe". I called that from the opening post.

These two retards cannot address my points head on, and they know it.

Pditty wrote:

I see that Satyr and his lackey's cannot form a proper counter argument, as expected.

What's more expected is that you cannot offer a challenge to the positions, rather than the delusions in your tiny, needy, brain.

Pditty wrote:

These two retards cannot address my points head on, and they know it.

Autistic man-child, to answer a challenge, a challenge must be offered.

Your encapsulation of my positions, indicates, for one more time, that you are clueless, despite the quantity of text available to you.

How can I respond to a challenge that has nothing to do with my views?

What I suggest you should do, before you conquer the world and revolutionize human thinking for the next ten-thousand years, is have a meeting with the torn-anus, a.k.a. LaughingStock, a/k/a. the Joke's on me, to decide who will be top-dawg in a spot-apocalyptic world where you both, despite being incapable of understanding some simple concepts, will dominate others.
It might get messy when you have to fight over the next Natalie pussy that comes along, so you have to clarify who will be in-charge and who will get first pick, before you proceed to your world-conquests.

A casual dismissal with no content.

You and I both know that I summed you up all too well. Don't try to deny it. You've written countless times that you presume, falsely, the universe is expanding instead of contracting, and that "entropy is default". I just take you to your logical conclusion, and you dislike the results. Blame yourself.

Pditty wrote:

 I just take you to your logical conclusion, and you dislike the results.  Blame yourself.

I always do.
At the moment I am blaming myself for responding you your desperate mind-farts.

Autistic man-child, if you want to pass-on those inferior genes, you must step-up your game...or become more lenient with your selection process.
You must begin to consider the option of going obese, or seeking your womb in a mental institution.
If the end of the world is your best bet, then I'm afraid the torn-anus will have first dibs.
He dominates you, and you follow, like a doggy.

Did the Joker have a lackey, or a pet?
Can't remember.

Just another pathetic diversion, loser.

Diversions don't work on me. Stay on topic or I'll put you in the dungeon where you belong.

Æon wrote:

Just another pathetic diversion, loser.

Diversions don't work on me.  Stay on topic or I'll put you in the dungeon where you belong.

You misrepresent his positions and mine, turkey.

Quote him from here, and then go point by point:

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


And btw., victimization is when you feel overpowered by the other as you said so, you blame and badmouth it instead of cultivating your own self - which is what asceticism/athleticism is.

Mind-slave,
Address the op or get the fuck out of my thread.

It's time to do some adult philosophy, no more children's games.

If you cannot address the OP, and the points directly, then your words are a waste of my time as well as our audience.

Æon wrote:

Mind-slave,
Address the op or get the fuck out of my thread.

It's time to do some adult philosophy, no more children's games.

If you cannot address the OP, and the points directly, then your words are a waste of my time as well as our audience.

When your OP is as f---ed up as you, and nowhere near anyone's claims, then you are a waste of your own time, and that makes you a clown below LOL even.

Mind-slave, we have a policy implemented on this forum......
It's called, address the OP and stay on topic, or, get the fuck out.

This is your second warning, a third will land you in the dungeon.

Here is some help, since I know you need it.

Is the universe expanding or contracting, why and how?

Satyr and Lyssa, now feeling threatened that they cannot so easily derail my topic, have added "midget" on my profile as an attempt to shame, ridicule, and embarrass me. This is how they "argue" and "think", very pathetic. People here ought to expect more from these two losers, correct?

No, they cannot address the points in this thread without embarrassing themselves. And I will say much more in due time.

For those who plan to someday expose Satyr and Lyssa for the fools these two are....expect what you are seeing here to happen to you, too. Because it will. Watch their defensiveness and reactions from this point out. If they cannot reason against a solid argument, as any philosopher ought to become able, then they reduced to personal attacks. These are easily brushed away.

Just stay on topic, that's the easy part....

Æon wrote:

Satyr and Lyssa, now feeling threatened that they cannot so easily derail my topic, have added "midget" on my profile as an attempt to shame, ridicule, and embarrass me.  This is how they "argue" and "think", very pathetic.  People here ought to expect more from these two losers, correct?

Since there are other green members here not such a mental-turk as you, it is to distinguish them from you and the likes of you...

Quote :

No, they cannot address the points in this thread

The points in your thread are redundant and does not in the least reflect Satyr's views. Your own inference is misguided with that midget-mind of yours, you should reflect hard on the link I gave you.

Mind-slave,
Strike three, you're out. Into the dungeon you go..........


Here is some help, since I know you need it.

Is the universe expanding or contracting, why and how?

Life = ordering
To be a nihilist is to ascribe to a state where life is impossible, or it is a position contrary to life and to the conditinos that make it possible.

If, no the other hand, you are a needy, desperate,t wit, you use the term to imply a destruction of order within which you cannot find your place, and you cannot dominate on any level, and so you imply a destruction to implement an alternate order, which would be an order where the needy mind places itself as the creator-god.
Therefore, a needy stupid twit does not really want nihilism, and chaos, but only to reshuffle the deck, hoping, despite the evidence and precedent that the new hand will be better for it.

So, it's not really a nihilist, per se, but a quiter...a sulky little boy who wants a do-over.

The funny part is that the past cannot be erased; cannot be denied, corrected, escaped...so whatever "new deal" it is given it will screw it up, over and over again; and whatever scenario it finds itself in, it will finds its way to the bottom of the hierarchy, because ti has no brains, no charisma and not enough humility to consider itself honestly.

Satyr wrote:

Life = ordering

No, life is not anymore "ordered" than patterns found in nature. Even unliving objects have symmetry and order to them. Order, opposed to chaos, is a direction of life, representing resistance. Order is nature adapting to man, instead of chaos, man adapting to nature.

Satyr wrote:

To be a nihilist is to ascribe to a state where life is impossible, or it is a position contrary to life and to the conditinos that make it possible.

Nihilism is dissatisfaction with the world "as it is", including the time that you are hungry, and wish to eat. Wish represents an ideal, a dream, a goal. You change the world, by finding food, and consuming it.

That is the true "interaction" that cannot be avoided.

Your description of nihilism as either "positive/negative" or "masculine/feminine" is a redundancy.

I wrote down a simple two word equation:
Life = ordering
Let's leave the 'more or less' for when you actually know what you are talking about...
To oppose order is to oppose life.
But you are not opposed to all order, just all order not yours, or with you on-top.
In which case, turd, you must prove yourself worthy of the post....and create it.
I asked you if you or your butt-buddy LaughingStock will be top-dawg - eventually your "alliance" has to decide its hierarchy.

Wyrm...I gave a definition of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]...and the rest of your commentary does not challenge my positions.

Satyr wrote:

Pditty wrote:

 I just take you to your logical conclusion, and you dislike the results.  Blame yourself.

I always do.
At the moment I am blaming myself for responding you your desperate mind-farts.

Autistic man-child, if you want to pass-on those inferior genes, you must step-up your game...or become more lenient with your selection process.
You must begin to consider the option of going obese, or seeking your womb in a mental institution.
If the end of the world is your best bet, then I'm afraid the torn-anus will have first dibs.
He dominates you, and you follow, like a doggy.

Did the Joker have a lackey, or a pet?  
Can't remember.

Tisk....Tisk......


You tease too much Satyr!

Anybody that joins my organization when the time of great upheaval comes gets to share in the spoils, pussy, plunder, and conquest equally.

I know how to reward my loyal compatriots.

I'm still curious what your noble elitist counter culture will be doing by comparison under such conflicting times.

Did I mention that we also have a great dental and medical initiatives within my organization also?   

Try getting those guarantees anywhere else.  

LaughingStock wrote:

Anybody that joins my organization when the time of great upheaval comes gets to share in the spoils, pussy, plunder, and conquest equally.

I know how to reward my loyal compatriots.

Have you told the Wyrm about your "rewards" system?

I think he'll have something to say about your leadership position.
He is going to revolutionize human thinking for the next ten-thousand years..what have you got to offer except pipe-dreams?
He want the top-notch pussy you will have access to.
Someone like the Bull-Dyke on ILP, I'm guessing; she seems to gravitate towards boisterous hot-air.

LaughingStock wrote:

I'm still curious what your noble elitist counter culture will be doing by comparison under such conflicting times.

Look at how it is dominating here.

Satyr wrote:

LaughingStock wrote:

Anybody that joins my organization when the time of great upheaval comes gets to share in the spoils, pussy, plunder, and conquest equally.

I know how to reward my loyal compatriots.

Have you told the Wyrm about your "rewards" system?

I think he'll have something to say about your leadership position.
He is going to revolutionize human thinking for the next ten-thousand years..what have you got to offer except pipe-dreams?
He want the top-notch pussy you will have access to.
Someone like the Bull-Dyke on ILP, I'm guessing; she seems to gravitate towards boisterous hot-air.

LaughingStock wrote:

I'm still curious what your noble elitist counter culture will be doing by comparison under such conflicting times.

Look at how it is dominating here.

Rewards of course are based upon the merit system.

How many people you kill....

How many buildings you.....   

What kind of resources you plunder......

Pipe dreams and thoughts now, tomorrow.....

Bull Dyke?  A woman like her might be something nice enough to play with a couple of nights anyways.  You always have to improve your organization's morale you know.

Of course every man has to respect the other man's possessions including his women.

If things get too heated men can duel each other in combat to the death for the other's possessions.  Don't need no pesky courts or law in the way to settle conflicts.

I'm sorry, what will your noble elites be up to again?

Satyr wrote:

I wrote down a simple two word equation:
Life = ordering

And it's wrong. Order and chaos are directions of consciousness, not an inherent aspect of life.

Order is man changing nature to fit his own need, resistance.
Chaos is man adapting to nature, submission, emasculation, no resistance.

Over the years, you routinely admit a position of chaos. You adapt yourself to "nature" instead of changing the world to suit yourself. However this is false, by how I outlined nihilism. You do change the world, in small ways, as do all organisms. You are merely blind to an opposite perspective.