There's something I don't get about the portrayal of nihilism in most sources. Why is it seen as defeatist and treated as a mental failure mode?Yes, sure, there is no fundamental meaning to life and at the end of it there's also nothing, but why must that mean you have to lie down and whinge until you die? It also means you can come up with your own goals and achieve them. If you want low-hanging fruit invent simple goals for yourself and achieve them. If that gets too trivial invent more challenging ones and achieve them too. If you fail it's also fine because the goal was made up in the first place and you can make up a more achievable one and work on that. You can move the goalposts however you like, since you're the only one playing. If at some point you are tired of playing and you think you've tried everything, then you can end your life, but if you don't want to (and most portrayals of nihilists have them deeply suffering and miserable, which means they don't want to), nothing dictates that you must.
>>25164066Two reasons: if nothing matters than you are always responsible for your actions and the outcomes you get, and second if nothing matters then appeals to authority no longer function, so people do what they want. What do I want? To make the world better. Why? Because I feel like it, even if it never matters. But no one else has to agree with that, and they probably wouldnt.
>>25164080> if nothing matters than you are always responsible for your actions and the outcomes you getI don't understand that. If you're a nihilist, there are no morals, responsibility per se does not exist. There may be people or organizations that may hold you responsible for something in specific ways (e.g. your job may reward you for fulfilling particular duties, the government of the territory where you live may punish you if you violate its laws), but there is no morality in this, just consequences. We can think of it that way: let's assume something happens to you that a moralist would certainly say is not your responsibility. E.g. you, without demonstrating any property or being conspicuous in any way, are robbed - somebody broke into your house while you're away and stole your laptop. Would it really make it better, knowing that it is not your responsibility and you are not morally in the wrong in any way? One way or the other you have suffered and now don't have a laptop. Even if you ask the police to catch the burglar and return your laptop, they will not be operating out of a sense of morality - they will be following the letter of the law.> But no one else has to agree with that, and they probably wouldnt.True, but I'm not sure non-nihilists have a better track record. People who are concerned about e.g. the environment/ecology certainly believe that everyone is responsible and that there is a higher moral authority to stop global warming/use less plastic/etc. And... they still have difficulties getting others to listen to them and have to resort to stunts like throwing soup on paintings to put eyeballs on their message. The invocations of higher authority don't seem to work. And if they don't, how would dropping them make you less happy?
>>25164066The goal of an idea is to parasitize your mind and body. The more you reject the parasites, the more hostile the hosts become.
>>25164066>>25164101At its core, nihilism is posteriori; you just had to be there. This is why almost every debate against nihilism is futile and logical nihilism feels like a stupid attempt to make something out of this thing.
>>25164104So what am "I" in this example? Am I a host? Then I'm not sure this explanation makes sense. If someone offers you something you don't want you just say no and move on.A prospective host that other hosts want to "infect"? I'm not sure that's correct either, e.g. I'm not a Christian and other Christians don't harass me over it.
>>25164066The negation of the infinite leads straight to nihilism. Everything becomes “a mental conception.”With nihilism, no discussion is possible; for the nihilist logic doubts the existence of its interlocutor and is not quite sure that it exists itself.From its point of view, it is possible that it may be for itself, only “a mental conception.”Only, it does not perceive that all which it has denied it admits in the lump, simply by the utterance of the word, mind.In short, no way is open to the thought by a philosophy which makes all end in the monosyllable, No.To No there is only one reply, Yes.Nihilism has no point.There is no such thing as nothingness. Zero does not exist. Everything is something. Nothing is nothing.Man lives by affirmation even more than by bread.
>>25164112There are many, many, many different parasites. They are all competing to control you. But doing so requires ousting the present parasites. You are already a host, just for different ideas.>If someone offers you something you don't want you just say no and move onOf course. Ideas are not defenseless. The parasites controlling you do not want to give up their control. Every idea implicitly claims that you ought to believe in it.>e.g. I'm not a Christian and other Christians don't harass me over it.Convincing someone of an idea is much more subtle than that. If harassment actually changed people's minds, they would do it.
>>25164128I should say that the parasites are as much you as your body is youyou are host and virus
>but why must that mean you have to lie down and whinge until you die? It also means you can come up with your own goals and achieve them.You can always turn your nihilism to bataille transgression, just sayin
Valid view OP - your position is basically existentialism.
>>25164066I think you might be the guy I was talking about Synecdoche New York with yesterday. These questions you’re asking, have been, not answered, but attempts have been made in many existential texts, and like the above anon basically stated, your view aligns with that.
The entire concept of objective meaning is abhorrent. It is an attempt to devalue your own decisions and values by appealing to some universally commanding force. Of course it's a bait and switch and this commanding force is just some nigger that wants to tell you what you can and can't do.
>>25164163>>25164160> you might be the guy I was talking about Synecdoche New York with yesterdayYeah, that's me. Since that thread died and you were the only one with a take on what I wrote, I decided to create a separate one.> your position is basically existentialism.This is interesting! I have never read any philosophers who are considered "existentialist". I constructed my position from being fascinated with Russian nihilists (I was too young to read philosophy then, I read Wikipedia and then Turgenev's Fathers and Sons), then reading Stirner (and very very superficially Nietzsche, but really I only read secondary/tertiary sources), then Seneca and Lucretius.I'm always interested in more ideas to steal, where should I start with existentialists?
>>25164194I would start with Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. They both come to the conclusion that you must find meaning in a world which appears to be devoid of any meaning. However, Kierkegaard claims this the answer lies in faith in a Christian God, whereas Nietzsche argues we must find this meaning within ourselves.If you are looking for authors where existentialism is ever-present in their works of fiction, I would suggest Dostoevsky and Camus.
>>25164228I read Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground. It's actually one of the examples I was off-handedly referring to as > portrayal of nihilism in most sourcesHis protagonist is exactly like that. He is defeated and decrepit and does nothing but whine and self-sabotage. I never understood where Dosto got the idea that nihilists are like this because I think you'd have to lack the most basic facilities for mental self-preservation to end up like this.My admittedly bad-faith take is that Dosto is a christian and that's why his nihilist is less an accurate portrayal and more of a "fire and brimstone" sermon, a warning to fellow Christians - "this is what happens if you lose faith!". But I didn't do a lot of research so I'm not sure this take is correct.
>>25164101Your hypothetical misses a few things. To be robbed, you need to have something. To have something, there needs to be a self and "the other", as well as the object. If you want there to be meaning with the things you have, you need to assign it. If you choose not to assign it, and if you choose not to seperate yourself from "the other", being robbed is irrelevant, just like owning the object in the first place.You are responsible for your actions and the outcomes because you chose to act; doing so breaks arbitration and you assign worth to the outcome you want. Suffering is based on desire, it's human to suffer and desire, but there is nothing to desire since "this" and "that" are all within one non-category; nothing. Dropping the actions is irrelevant to happiness, often you must act, but assigning worth and desiring something to be "happy" is to imbalance the equation in the first place with desire, and ideally you just accept outcomes as they occur. This isnt depressing, it's inhabiting instead of conjugating.
>>25164066Weaklings need someone to blame for their misfortune and to beg for good outcomes.
>>25164101There is no morality outside of consequences. Kant was retarded.
>>25164101There is something called Humanism, and most atheists are more moral than the deists. The prison system is full of Christians, not atheists.
>>25164166Appealing to some universally commanding force is also a decision.
>>25164066>Why is it seen as defeatist and treated as a mental failure mode?Tools want to be used, and a tool that thinks being a tool is the highest good, will complain about anyone who doesn't want to be a tool.
>>25164066https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-best-argument-for-nihilism>I've never been very impressed by the arguments for nihilism-the thesis that nothing matters. They've always struck me as extremely lame, or, for those who find describing arguments as lame ableist, braindead (Who will be offended by that? Braindead people?). Some nihilists, for instance, will point out that the world will end at some point in the future, and then confidently assert the obvious non-sequitur that this means that nothing matters. I have never understood such arguments or why the hell anyone finds them persuasive!>But there is one argument for nihilism that I find fairly persuasive. I'd give it maybe 30% odds of being right and I find that prospect terrifying. If it is right, that would have the tragic consequence that nothing we do matters. It would have an upside though; the universe wouldn't be good, but nor would it be bad! Heck, it wouldn't even be neutral! It would be something else, something much weirder!>The basic steps of the argument are as follows:>1. There are infinite people.>2. If there are infinite people, our actions have infinite consequences, both positive and negative.>3. If our actions have infinite consequences, both positive and negative, then the value of our actions, and the world, would be undefined.>4. If the value of our actions are undefined, then nothing we do matters.>5. Therefore, nothing we do matters.>In short, if our actions have infinite positive and negative effects, and there's no coherent way to say they have more positive effects than negative effects, then our actions are neither good nor bad. This applies to all of them! So, let's see if that's true.
>>25164315>My admittedly bad-faith take is that Dosto is a christian and that's why his nihilist is less an accurate portrayal and more of a "fire and brimstone" sermon, a warning to fellow Christians - "this is what happens if you lose faith!". But I didn't do a lot of research so I'm not sure this take is correct.No, you're entirely correct, which is one of the may reasons he sucks.
>>25164066>Why is it seen as defeatist and treated as a mental failure modeBecause it's an infinite regress/vicious circle of negation.Nothing is true, if it is a true statement makes it false, now ambivalently everything or anything is true, including that nothing is true...
>>25164315>lack the most basic facilities for mental self-preservationYes. That's what nihilism means...Lack of everything.
>>25164406That anything is in the category of nothing is a category of non-nothing. And you've refuted yourself.
>>25164066>If you want low-hanging fruit invent simple goals for yourself and achieve them. If that gets too trivial invent more challenging ones and achieve them too. If you fail it's also fine because the goal was made up in the first place and you can make up a more achievable one and work on that. You can move the goalposts however you like, since you're the only one playing.Begging the question>if you want?Why?>achieve themWhy?>it's also fineWhy?
>>25165773>>25164066Moving a point on an Infinite plane where everywhere looks the same would be indistinguishable from not moving at all. Mot moving in a [true] void is indistinguishable from moving. Without reference or contrast action does not exist.
>>25164066test
>>25164104That's an idea.
>>25165773> >if you want?> Why?Because it's human to want things. We usually need something to chase. If you are so transcendent that you've been able to rip even the basic biological imperatives from your brain, then this doesn't apply to you and I respect your mastery of yourself. But that is not the level absolute majority - maybe even all - IRL nihilists are on (demonstrably). The imagined portrayals of nihilism that I am talking about are also not there, because capable of complaining and whining and being generally unhappy, which also means they are not on that level. So, for whatever reason, they are still capable of wanting things, despite their nihilism.
>>25165771That's why it's a noncategory and I used my words carefully.
>>25166695If you can refer to it then it is a category.
