File: niceargumentbut.jpg (3.78 MB, 4802x6710)

3.78 MB JPG

>>25165817
Just be hopeful, mate. No need for yapping

>>25165817
>falling for it

This is why the Greeks couldn't comprehend zero. "If nothing is a number, then nothing couldn't be a number, therefore nothing is not a number."

Thankfully Indians had a more developed spirituality and logic so they could understand and shared their wisdom with the west

>>25164104
>The goal of an idea is to parasitize your mind and body.
>here's an idea, ideas are [negative value]

>>25165842
said by no one who has read Proclus and Damascius

>>25165848
Well done, come back to class when you have read a Greek mathematician

>>25165850
>math brained pooinloo hasn't read Proclus or Damascius

>>25165817
>>Nihilism is the proposition that there are no true statements
No, its the proposition that truths are arbitrary and ultimately meaningless to the point that they can largely be ignored which is why most of the population doesn't know much if anything about math or logic.

>>25165858
>retard doesn't know that Greek philosophers all literally worshipped math

>>25165872
Most of the population are nigger cattle tho

>>25165878
Math/dialectics is four orders removed from supreme reality.

>>25165872
>No X isn't X it is X
Using synonyms doesn't change the meaning of a statement.

>>25165886
Untrue and arbitrary are not synonyms.

>>25165889
sure...

>>25165882
What are the other orders?

>>25165882
Sounds like you just defined the supreme order quantitatively.

>>25165892
nonrepresentational, unified, ineffable

>>25165893
>math brain thinks distinction = quantity

>>25165896
>represent the nonrepresentational
>define the unified by division
>categorize and label the ineffable

>>25165890
Untrue indicates falsehood, arbitrary indicates insignificant.

>>25165900
>hasn't read the Neoplatonists
>thinks they don't adress this

>>25165896
Orders of what, are you saying god is not unified and math is not representational since they are all on different orders?

>>25165902
Truth is significance.

>>25165899
"four" is a number lil bro. Pinky promise

>>25165880
And the point of nihilism is that it doesn't really matter since other people can still do better things than most of the population regardless of their malicious impressionability.

>>25165903
I have and they didn't, mathlet. They only got to negative theology which is completely retarded since that is like saying counting brings you nearer to infinity

>>25165906
Some things are certain colors is not really significant, people can be color blind and still navigate reality just fine without considering the colors of objects or in the case of blind people the entire visual truth of objects.

>>25165911
Doesn't matter to whom?

>>25165905
Math is representational/dialectic thought.
Nonrepresentational = knowing by being the same as the object known
Unified = knowing by principle/cause/necessity/apriori/simplicity—because you realize yourself above the constituents, "knowing the thing in itself by knowing its reason".
Ineffable = end of 2001: A Space Odyssey

>>25165925
Weed

>>25165907
No one said you can't represent higher orders by analogy of lower ones. Only that the higher aren't reduced to only follow the logic of lower orders.

>>25165928
I prefer Ket + Coke

>>25165930
>No one said you can't represent higher orders by analogy of lower ones.

So....this is the power of apophatic thought ...

>>25165915
The whole of reality.
The truth of your retardation has no bearing on my own capacity for introspection.

>>25165935
If the apophatic breaks the PNC then naturally it also doesn't break it at the same time

>>25165938
How would you know what and what doesn't matter to le whole of reality?

>>25165932
This is why you need Indians like me to do the math and coding for your app

>>25165944
inb4 meme of old white programmers use a short line to solve what indian needs a whole paragraph to code
Code bloat
Excess in all things.

>>25165906
Here's a statement:
> a person named John Smith aged 24 currently lives in Poughkeepsie, NY
It may be true or untrue. But unless you are doing a census of Poughkeepsie or tracking every John Smith alive, what does it matter to you?

>>25165942
I just said, because i know that the truth of your retardation has no bearing on my own capacity for introspection and my grand vision along with all it can envision has no bearing on your own blindness and missing inner monologue, so your truths and diminished perspective of reality doesn't actually degrade the external reality.

>>25165944
Ok, but when he wants someone to win at video games and design something impressive in his name, he still goes with koreans and japs.

>>25165947
A statement is meaningless without teleology. They can only be true within a language/an internal logic, but if it ultimately isn't true outside itself then everything within is isn't 'truly true'. Aka arbitrary.

>>25165952
So assuming there truly is a John Smith aged 24 currently lives in Poughkeepsie, NY, does that mean it is true that John Smith aged 24 currently lives in Poughkeepsie, NY and is that truth significant to you in any way?

>>25165954
There only truly is one if 'human' and 'being located'/having a home adress are valid categories. Being valid is begging the question of purposiveness behind phenomena.

File: pennywise waha.gif (683 KB, 220x164)

683 KB GIF

>>25165817
But if the statement "Nihilism is true" is false, doesn't that support nihilism being correct?
WA HA
WA HA
WA HA

>>25165960
That's the point.
>>25165735

>>25165955
>There only truly is one if 'human' and 'being located'/having a home adress are valid categories.
Yes and as I indicated which you seemed to ignore so you can avoid admitting the insignificance is that is definitely the teleology defined in this case, so given that systemic truth, is it true that John Smith aged 24 currently lives in Poughkeepsie, NY and is that truth or lack thereof currently significant to you in any way?

>>25165912
>only got to negative theology
It is nice of you to expose that you haven't read the Neoplatonists, or even Plato.

>>25165966
I'm not the nihilist here
If there's significance then there is truth and if there is truth then it is possible that your question that the new york zoomer living in NY is true

>>25165974
>If there's significance then there is truth
Now you are just inverting your claim that if there is truth there is significance while still failing to demonstrate exactly how that truth is significant to you and how knowing a random new Poughkeepsien's name significantly impacts your life or significantly affects your decision making.

>>25165817
>confusing moral nihilism with epistemological skepticism

>>25165978
Imagine thinking not having direct significance means it has no dognifsnce.
If an apple in my hand has significance to me because I'm hungry then automatically all apples have significance to me even if they're inaccessible to me.
>>25165996
>he thinks they're separate at the highest level.
Ever heard of 'grand unified theory' in physics? Metaphysics has the same thing, since all eternal laws, whether epistemic or moral or aesthetic or semantic or geometric, share a common first principle of all (the One).

>>25166008
You cannot derive an is from ought or vice versa.

>>25166009
The only way to derive an is is from an ought.
Without ought nothing is.

>>25166008
>Imagine thinking not having direct significance means it has no dognifsnce.
Imagine knowing you can't point out any significant impact it has on your life, but still trying to argue it has significance in your life.
>If an apple in my hand has significance to me because I'm hungry then automatically all apples have significance to me even if they're inaccessible to me
So all bits of human feces are significant to you because there is truth in their existence, so you want to spend your life examining as many turds in as much detail as possible to figure out and unlock their individual significance to your life even though most people consider their own excrement to be waste?

>>25165817
>>Nihilism is the proposition that there are no true statements
no one says this

>>25166010
We can prove that things are. We can't prove that anything "ought" to be

>>25166010
>The only way to derive an is is from an ought.
No, the only way to derive an is is from actual observation and modeling, oughts are just ideals rather than anything that has been actualized.

>>25166049
>We can prove that things are. We can't prove that anything "ought" to be
Oh my, lmao, where even to begin? Positivism in 2026
>
>>25166018
Everything has some DEGREE of significance you fucking autist. Everything influences everything in some way. And therefore matters in some minute microscopic way.
It's not black and white, your imaginary lover is more significant than your friend, your friend more than acquaintance, they more than a stranger, a stranger more than an tree a tree more inanimate object, etc. Everything can be theoretically mapped.
>>25166063
There are infinite possible categories. There are no valid categories without ought to recognize them as real and significant. There's no objective world of things without reason to justify their identity of 'this exists'.
Purpose divides all things, without reason there are no divisions.

>>25166125
>Everything has some DEGREE of significance you fucking autist.
Not to you, you can ignore pretty much everything and pretty much everything you find significant can be completely ignored by everyone else, that is the point, retard.

>It's not black and white
Except of course when blackness or whiteness serves your argument, then you wouldn't stop going on about the significant necessity of black and white.
>a stranger more than an tree a tree more inanimate object
How? How is John Smith aged 24 who currently lives in Poughkeepsie, NY any more significant to you than a tree name Hickory Black age 180 that currently lives in Poughkeepsie, NY?
>There's no objective world of things without reason to justify their identity of 'this exists'.
You don't have to know the reason first, though, most things in existence have to have their reason for existing discovered rather than preceding the existence.
>Purpose divides all things, without reason there are no divisions.
So that is why you collect human turds, every little division, no matter how seemingly insignificant, needs to be logged extensively?

>>25166125
Obviously some things are black and white, that's the entire premise of this thread. Absolutes. Nihilism or atheism is the hypocritical absolute that there are no absolutes.
So too it is not absolute than any real object in the world is 'absolutely insignificant' because there's a possibility that it can affect you somehow and if it were insignificant it wouldn't be able to affect you. That's basically the meaning of significance: The degree to which it affects your life.
The apple on the other side of the world COULD be in your hand in 3 days—therefore there's SOME significance to it, no matter how small. If it COULD affect you then it has significance.

>>25166168
>Nihilism or atheism is the hypocritical absolute that there are no absolutes.
No its not, nihilism says that absolutes don't even really matter and atheism says that absolute constructs aren't necessarily people or personlike.
>therefore there's SOME significance to it
Then why doesn't it matter at all if the apple that ends up in my hand comes from the other side of the world or from somewhere else and why is John Smith aged 24 who currently lives in Poughkeepsie, NY so insignificant that you are changing the subject to apples instead of pointing out his significance to you?

>>25166186
>atheism says that absolute constructs aren't necessarily people or personlike.
I guess all those impersonal gods have no believers...
>>25166186
>why doesn't it matter
Just because you're too stupid to recognize the difference doesn't make it correspond to the teleology of things in the world.
>>25166168 Meant fo r>>25166147

>>25166202
No, if the universe is just an impersonal god that isn't what people usually mean by God, people tend to identify as atheists to deny that the universe has some personhood.
>Just because you're too stupid to recognize
The problem is that you're too stupid to point out a single significant thing, not that I am asking you to back up your claim of significance with a single significant way it affects you, but that you can't actually do it.

>>25166186
>instead of pointing out his significance to you
He has significance to me, that's literally what I'm saying. If I learned about his hemorrhoids or broken legs I'd feel a pity for him even though I know nothing about him and will never meet him. Even a random grain on the beaches of Chile has significance to me even if I don't consciously know why exactly it has it. Maybe I'll walk there one day in my old age, or maybe a grandchild, or a descendant in a thousand years.

>>25166215
>isn't what people usually mean by God
It's exact what most theologians in most religions conceive the absolute as. The only exception is Shaivism and Vishishtadvaita and then some retarded denominations of protestantism.

>>25166217
>He has significance to me, that's literally what I'm saying
Oops, I just realized that his name is actually spelled Jon and he actually lives just outside of Poughkeepsie, so how has your life significantly changed now that something significant about your life was proven false instead of true?

>>25166227
No, the major world religions all conceive of him as a father and actual being because that is how their holy books describe god, not as a genderless abstraction, but as an actual personification.

>>25166227
So if math is god and god isn't a person to them, why don't they just talk about math instead of being so focused on divine bloodlines and other such nonsense?

>>25166168
>If it COULD affect you then it has significance.
So truths about the past don't matter and aren't significant, only the truths that can affect you in the present are actually significant, if Mr. Smith was 24 in 1894, that wouldn't be significant despite being true?

>>25166260
You are clearly too stupid for this discussion.
I used future as signifying significance of present things, then fucking obviously past things would have significance today. Remember that trivia about old facebook where everyone was people away from knowing anyone on earth? Ergo dead people had an effect on people they knew and these people affected people they knew, and you are very likely to know someone that knew someone that knew X person. No matter who.
Everyone changes history, so everyone matters in some remote way.
Every grain of sand changes the inertia of whole earth, such that it if wasn't on the earth will have changed the trajectory of the entire solar system in billions of years.
There are no causal atoms.
>>25166234
Significantly isn't the same as 'having SOME significance" , the former is used for emphasis of notably personal importance, the latter is a general quality that everything has.
>>25166238
Should read more books, maybe your native religion's most prominent theologians and read what they say about 'father' (hint: it has nothing to do with sexual gender but is a honorific and allegory for being 'the productive principle of all').
Person implies having a mindscape and particularized agency, this is s contingency on the reality of mind and will and makes God to not be the highest causal entity.

>>25166241
I'm not the one in this thread with the hard on for math.

>>25166227
How exactly can a god have divine agency without having personal agency?

>>25166273
You were the one implying that an impersonal god is indistinguishable from math which doesn't make sense given that gods are typically defined as divine beings with omnipotent personal agency.

>>25165817
Not a nihilist but one could claim that nihilism isn't propositionally positive, for instance if one were to say "there are no items for sale in the store" you can't go to the store and buy one "no items"
They could also just say logical statements aren't meaningful and grammar doesn't reflect reality

>>25166285
One and no are two different things, what you are suggesting is just a nonsensical semantics as talking about buying one "two items", but you can certain go to a store once and buy "no items".

>>25166274
I don't think God is impersonal, only objected to the claim that gods have to be personal (they are all personal to me, but I'm a philosophical outlier in that regard—but that's very upper management neoplatonism).
>>25166278
If there's anything eternal then it is a god. That's the actual traditional, pre-christian, idea of the divine. Just look up all the primordial or abstract concepts in greel myth, ALL nouns are gods. Ergo the famed quote of Thales "Everything is full of gods." Every river, mountain, hill, cliff, wind, forest, sea. Every abstract concept like Love, War, Peace, Knowledge, Justice, Truth, Beauty... Even in later catholic theology angelize them, 'angel of virtue'.
There are dimensions of personal, to me nothing at all can actually be impersonal, unless we talk about abstract divisions like a partition of our bodies, my ears don't have agency of their own because they do not really exist in themselves but only as parts of the whole of my body. But anything that is "something in itself" is personal to me. Especially eternal universal laws of reality—like the laws of logic that rule math. Christians worship him (Logos) distinctively.

>>25165817
Why do analytic philosophers struggle to define nihilism? It's closer to the idea that there is no inherent meaning and no morality, not that there are no true statements.

>>25166320
Statements are definitions of meanings.

>>25166317
>objected to the claim that gods have to be personal
You couldn't back up those objections since you can't even refer to god without personifying it and giving it agency and conscious awareness.
>If there's anything eternal then it is a god.
Only because if something like time or math or dirt were eternal, you would just apply your vague semantics and call that god because its dogmatic rather than reasoned.
>Every abstract concept
No, they didn't become abstract until people realized those things weren't actually governed by magical people that live in the mountains and thus lacked personal agency.
>nothing at all can actually be impersonal
And nothing at all can actually be less than eternal since god is eternal and eternally creates everything.
>But anything that is "something in itself" is personal to me.
So do you give all your poopies a name and have conversations with them or just refer to them with a collective name because you are too lazy to name each one and discover its individual personality?

>>25165842
saar...

>>25166008
>If an apple in my hand has significance to me because I'm hungry then automatically all apples have significance to me even if they're inaccessible to me.
Wow that's completely retarded

Nihilism is not the statement that no statements are true. Nihilism is the belief that it doesn't matter.

>>25166389
Edibility is meaningful to you, therefore everything edible is meaningful to you.
Now reconsider your perception of your own intelligence being unable to deduce this before today.

"nihilism" is mostly used to describe disbelief in a particular topic

e.g.
moral nihilism - the view that absolute moral values do not exist
epistemological nihilism - the view that there is no true knowledge, or that it can never be obtained
mereological nihilism - the view that only indivisible simples exist, i.e. chairs do not exist, only particles arranged chairwise
ontological nihilism - the view that nothing exists

The word "nihilism" alone isn't very specific and has been used (mostly as an insult) to describe lots of different views, many of which are incompatible. So it's hard to say that there is one, unified "nihilism".

>>25166508
A nihilist arguing for a distinction between nihilisms isn't very nihilistic of them.
It would seem quite arbitrary and strange to argue for moral nihilism but that there are platonic/eternal ideas/laws of nonethical phenomena—you would only do this to be contrarian.
Eitherway any metrological/ontological nihilism (same thing) is automatically a nihilism of everything else.

>>25165817
>Nihilism
another day on /lit/, another strawman

>>25165817
I think the strain of nihilism youre referring to (the sort of semi-Nietzschean truth skepticism) generally does not really care about making true statements, including the statement 'nihilism is true.' It does what it does and it simply does not care about the truth content. You'd say "but thats contradictory!" and they'd reply "So? that did not stop me being a Nihilist, so clearly the truth is not that powerful" (kind of ties into Nietsche's will to power, with the truth of an idea being independent of its force)

The refutation is the indifference to logical coherence, not the logical coherence itself.

I think there are certainly refutations to be made against this philosophy, but they cannot rely on logical coherence like the argument here tries to do. It would have to dialectically engage with the way nihilism works in practice, not just in theory, since this strain counters such theoretical attacks by pointing to their lack of practical force.

>>25166840
>A nihilist arguing for
I'm not a """""""nihilist""""""""". I don't even know what that would mean because that is not how the term is used.

>Eitherway any metrological/ontological nihilism (same thing)
No it isn't???????The view that only simples exist and the view that nothing exist are explicitly mutually exclusive???? It's also mereological, not metrological?????????????

Why the fuck are you talking about philosophy if you have never read any philosophy and don't know any of the terms in philosophy?????

I'm going to go insane

>>25166905
That's why I said a nihilist not you.
Mereological nihilism reduces to absolute monism (because everything else is a part of something greater)—aka Buddhism/advaita. Hence it is effectively ontological nihilism. Especially since the latter reduces to absolute monism since it is impossible to argue that nothing at all exists (see: OP).

>>25166923
>>25166905
And retarded sophists can say "Nuh uh" and verbally deny that this isn't the case. But necessity doesn't give a fuck.
If you deny parts you deny everything except pure emptiness of "sunyata". And Buddhists can sophistically deny that nirvana isn't identical to an apophatic but impersonal nondual god/gnosticism: everything but "God" that's "definitely not brahman" is unreal.
Calling something by a different name doesn't change what it essentially is.

>>25166937
Or "we're not purple we're violet". Yeah whatever. It reduces to the same attitude towards human action.

>>25166937
>>25166905
So too does epistemic nihilism reduce to basic monism/nihilism. Since you can't know any otherness only naked existence truly exists to your awareness and we have effectively an ontological nihilism since all phenomena would be indistinguishable from a philosophy of maya.

File: Screenshot_20260326-191945~2.jpg (575 KB, 858x2560)

575 KB JPG

>>25166905
But if you don't believe me then maybe last century's greatest philosopher might sway you

Nihilists say that nothing matters and yet they don't want to suck the shit out of my asshole with a straw.... curious!

>>25165935
No, he's just an idiot. Study math and plato.

>>25165817
>babby's first dialetheism
Read Nagarjuna. Nothing is the foundation of reality, but not the entire reality.

>>25166992
Also Heidegger's comparison between aletheia and veritas. Bother Nagarjuna and Heidegger understood that truth operates on two layers.

>>25166992
>>25166976
Nagarjuna says nothing Gorgias didn't imply, and hence effectively retroactively refuted by Plato.

>>25167001
Scheler retroactively refuted Heidegger—causing H a lifetime of metaphysical life crisis. Forever walking in a maze.

>>25167007
>Scheler
LOL

>>25166976
This literally says nothing, which solidifies the point that nothing is the foundation of reality

>>25166905
>AHHHHH IMMM GOING INSANNNEE. Help me! Platorino

>>25165817
Academics gotta get paid somehow

>>25166923
Thats not monism at all.

>>25167002
You clearly haven't read the MMK if you believe this

>>25167026
It says that every philosophy or "worldview" had an absolute which is that person's God. Everyone worship something.

>>25167011
Yes, Scheler whom Heidegger said was the greatest philosopher.

>>25165817
If nothing matters than nihilism also cannot matter. It is a self defeating position.

>>25167043
>absolute monism (as in everything but one thing is not truly real)
There are no non-incoherent ideas that aren't monist in some way.

>>25167044
To call things empty of inherent "self-being" is indifferent to saying they don't "actually exist" or "are illusory" or "are false". It's all the same in the end

>>25167091
I say this with respect, you seem smart however you should read more.

>>25167097
Reading Wikipedia for 5 minutes doesn't make you an expert on Nagarjuna's philosophy. Scheler has nothing to say about dialetheism or true contradictions, so I struggle to comprehend how he is even pertinent to the topic.

>>25167107
Two things of different core substance are unknowable to each other, since knowing is coincidence and synonymy of being.
Like color to the colorblind.

>>25167164
And only someone who doesn't understand the paragraph in the OP could ever find any other system retarded on principle.

>>25167177
You think nihilists worship nothing as a God >>25167059 so by definition you're retarded

>>25167185
Whatever you make truth and only reality is by definition your god since it becomes the only immortal being.

>>25167195
Nothing is not a "being" or "immortal" and it's "truth" is only applicable at the base nature of understanding, not at a face to face level. Nagarjuna isn't saying that emptiness is God, he's saying it's foundational to reality and is therefore the "true" nature of reality.

>>25167213
>emptiness isn't X
>says it is X with extra steps
God is that which is true reality, therefore whatever you say is true reality is your God.

>>25167185
I mean...

>>25167234
You're accusing him of being some sort of anti-Buddhist that worships reality, when he is actually rejecting it as harshly as possible. He even addresses your argument IN the text.

>>25167251
If x and y are z, then z is x and y.
But if Y is something X is not and this not due to Z, then he has a fourth untold power that's the true God preventing X (phenomena) from collapsing into identity of (Y) nirvana. If both are emptiness but not each other, then these 3 are not the be all end all. And you have a hidden god.

File: Wittgenstein2.jpg (10 KB, 250x202)

10 KB JPG

>>25167031
It's too late... I'm already insane... you could say I'm sick in the head... in this society....

File: 8izmsce0dybe1.jpg (37 KB, 672x672)

37 KB JPG

>retards actually think they can define concepts into existence
this will always be funny as fuck

>>25168285
>Nagarjuna: The foundation of reality is emptiness, so we must reject it
>retard on 4chan: Wowie this guy worships nothing as god 0_0

>>25168299
Like good/evil?

>>25166937
You're still saying X comes from Y while they're saying X is the absence of Y. X is nothing so it cannot "come from" anywhere, it's only defined in relation to what it is not.

>>25165906
Only on a superficial level. You can say "I am a human" and that might be a true statement, but when someone asks "what makes you human?" you have to accept consensus, exemptions and other arbitrary qualities because ultimately the truth of your humanity isn't significant. Then you might say that only ultimate truth is significant, but this is always unknown or unreachable, which is why philosophers struggle to identify it.

>>25166503
Let's stick to the apple. Just because one specific thing has meaning (such as a specific apple) to me, does not mean that all apples have meaning to me, because that specific apple has meaning for a reason, and no it's not only its general edibility. Why would all apples have meaning? A crab apple has no meaning to me because I don't care to even try one, a green apple has no meaning because I've tried and don't like them, an apple that is currently being eaten by somebody on the other side of the Earth has no meaning to me for the obvious reason that there is no way I could eat it. There may be some meaning in an apple I'm currently eating, or that I am shopping for to eat later, but there's also no meaning (to me) in the apples currently at the store when I already have a bag of apples at home. It's also basic phenomenology that no two apples are truly equivalent, that apple is simply an abstract designation, and we may not even define apple in the same way. One may even see all individual "apples" as one kind of thing whereas another sees individual "apples" all as entirely different species (ie. not the same thing).

>>25166503
> Edibility is meaningful to you, therefore everything edible is meaningful to you.
Not everything edible is meaningful to you in its edibility. Are human beings meaningful to you in their edibility?
>>25166508
Good way to put it.

>>25169075
Humans aren't edible.

>>25168318
Nagarjuna says rejection is also emptiness.

>>25169069
That someone else is eating an apple is also meaningful to you. Or ought to be if you weren't a narcissist. That someone is eating shows they aren't sick and won't die.
Meaning courses through everything and nothing, if it exists as a genuine category, is absolutely meaningless.

>>25165906
someone drunk the empiricist kool-aid. i think you're the kid from the philosophy general who kept sperging about this too

>>25166503
why are you still trying to argue with this guy when it's obvious he doesn't know what "meaningful" means. i think he thinks it literally means "has a meaning"

>>25169175
It's fascinating

>>25169171
The Good (significance) is the cause of Truth. Nothing is true without significance.
Basic fundamental Platonism.

>>25169187
>The Good (significance)
you don't know what basic english means lmao

File: Screenshot_20260327-134702~2.jpg (86 KB, 1096x689)

86 KB JPG

>>25169189

>>25165817
>Nihilism is the proposition that there are no true statements
Uh, no.

>>25169192
show me where it says good is synonymous with significance

>>25169198
That which is good is that which is significant. Ergo something is only significant if it is good.

>>25169200
what

>>25169206
If something bad happens it exudes significance, or the truth of its badness, indicating the good that ought to be done against it in contradiction to it.

>>25169210
guh

>>25169212
It's only because the Good is that bad things can be called bad. If nothing was good then nothing would be evil. And it would impossible to say anything about anything, for it is implicit in every word some implications of meaningfulness (i.e indicating reaction and action that ought to be taken in relation to X). Nothing is true in a void. There are no bare facts.

>>25169119
>That someone else is eating an apple is also meaningful to you. Or ought to be if you weren't a narcissist.
If everything's meaningful, nothing is. Not reading any further.

File: rs_1200x1200-221006094815(...).jpg (192 KB, 1080x1080)

192 KB JPG

>>25169102

>>25169187
Plato was a retard

>>25169241
No, it's only because we have the word good that we have the word bad. Just because we can imagine something does not make it real. Just because we can imagine that things have some quality to them that makes them good or gooder, or which inverted would be bad or badder, does not mean that is a real quality. There is no good nor bad. There is beneficial to some end, and there is preferred, but there is no objective good.

>>25169250
>things can't be 100 degrees if other things are 12
Just as nothing is absolute zero so too is nothing absolutely meaningless.

>>25169252
Edibility is also spiritual benefit. Psychological damage of cannibalism refutes its edibility.

>>25169264
Is this objective truth that nothing is objectively good something I should care about? Is there anything good about adhering to it if it is the truth?
If it is true then nothing is good, then nor can it be good to know this truth or regard it as true. And so it becomes—effectively—false.

File: Nihilism - (1994 Fr. Rose(...).gif (3.87 MB, 893x1156)

3.87 MB GIF

>>25165817
Good stuff OP

>>25165837
I hope when I inevitably go bald I’ll be able to look even 10% as cool as this fuck.

>>25169287
>If it is true then nothing is good, then nor can it be good to know this truth or regard it as true.
You really need to delve into semantics. You're conflating two uses of the word good with one another.

>>25169480
Sophists walk the labyrinth of limbo until the ages' end.

>>25169973
More and more the symbolic replaces that which exists.

File: xf2kcr.jpg (53 KB, 417x609)

53 KB JPG

>>25169480
>two uses of the word good
WAGTFKY

>>25166491
Isn't whether x matters purely subjective?

>>25165932
Patrician. Who needs a bladder anyway?

File: 1375222603443.png (193 KB, 681x440)

193 KB PNG

>oversimplify something to the point where the very definition of it is incorrect
>disprove the incorrect interpretation
>gotcha

>>25173806
If there's anything eternally true/actual then that is a god/an eternal law.
Why stop there? We've already accepted the supernatural now.

>>25171806
Elaborate

>>25173965
There weren't two uses of the word good (the end)

>>25173966
Except there were.
> Is there anything good about adhering to it if it is the truth?
Good = beneficial to some unspecified end
> If it is true then nothing is good
Good = positive in moral quality
> then nor can it be good to know this truth or regard it as true
Good = beneficial to some unspecified end, again

>>25173976
None of those are different and each applies to each other.
Goods are ends, morals are ends, valuables are ends.

File: 20260329_141204.jpg (566 KB, 1879x1797)

566 KB JPG

>>25173976
If it is true then it is not good to adhere to it, since it denies that anything can be good to adhere to.

>>25173986
Then I may simply refute >>25169287 by stating (truly) that I value lucidity, and thus any lucid truth, however uncomfortable it may be for others, is good for me. True, in every sense, and thus good. Before responding, please keep in mind that while we were initially speaking of objectivity, you brought in subjectivity by accepting good as relating to ends, and value. I'm glad we're getting somewhere.

>>25166923
> Mereological nihilism reduces to absolute monism (because everything else is a part of something greater)—aka Buddhism/advaita.
Advaita is the final red-pill, even Plato by comparison seems like a mere baby

>>25173999
Scheler is an idiot.

>>25174005
>>25173999
The personal is a relation to the objective. That's the entire premise of objectivity.
It is arbitrary I'd your subjective state is unrelated to a trans-subjective absolute. Because it means you can arbitrarily change it. Unless you'd like to argue that your personal state is itself an eternal absolute that has this preference in every possible world.
But that just means you have an intimate knowledge of the Good and you'd be a prophet among men so keenly aware that what you prefer is infallibly desired.

>>25174012
Doesn't change the undeniable fact that the having of a means to a desirable end is itself a desirable end.

>>25174017
There is no trans-subjective absolute, or objective good, because good is itself a relational term. Good is always relative to an end, and ends are subjective. Many ends around common, but they're all subjective. My personal state doesn't need to be an eternal absolute for me to have values. It can definitely be in flux and I can still relate things to it. In fact, even if there was an objective good, that too could be in flux and doesn't necessarily need to be absolute. Further, subjective does not mean arbitrary, nor does it imply a free will to modify one's values.

>>25174033
Then there are no good relations. Since they're arbitrary and only happens for be. You have no reason to value them the way you find yourself doing. That you are is not a reason that you should.
Which leads to all the forms of nihilism: nothing is justifiable.

>>25174027
Unless that means to a desirable end is undesirable to another more highly-valued end.

>>25174040
That just means the lesser end (good) is a false good. If a means is undesirable then the end is undesirable because they're just two sections of one whole.

>>25174038
Arbitrary in that sense, yes. That I have no reason to value does not mean that I don't value - and in fact I do. And in that lies a reason, in fact the ultimate reason, to act. I work towards certain ends because I value those ends. Of course I don't, as you have followed, have any reason to value an end. I just do. I may value means to those ends, for reason that they promise or tease those ends, but I have no reasons for my ends.Those were provided me by biology as well as chance.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes

>>25174041
I'm speaking of two desirable ends, which one would like mutually to fulfill, and even may be mutually fulfillable, but not [as easily] if one dedicates themselves to certain means which work towards one at the cost of the other. Let us say I want both X and Y, A is a means to X but runs counter to Y, but B is another means and works to the benefit of both X and Y. Thus if one uses means A, they achieve only end X, but if they use means B they achieve both desireable ends. In a third case, they use means A and C - C works towards Y at a quicker rate than A works against it, and thus they again achieve both ends, but Y at a slower rate. There is no undesirable end here. It isn't necessary for there to be.

>>25174048
If you don't have a reason to do so, you wouldn't genuinely value it. Since it would be no different than a delusion. It would be an elaborate Stockholm syndrome phenomena.

>>25174065
And? This doesn't have any effect of the previous premises. That there can be two equally desirable goods at the same time is just lovely.

>>25169480
>You really need to delve into semantics. You're conflating two uses of the word good with one another.
For as much as some Platonists on /lit/ ostensibly claim to hate sophism, they engage in it themselves surprisingly often. A favorite sophistic trick of theirs is to use arguments premised on falsely conflating two different meanings of a term. Once you learn to spot it you see them do it constantly. This deliberate sophistry is at odds with their constant pearl-clutching and makes them seem like hypocrites.

>>25165842
Parmenides, Aristotle, etc. all take up nothingness and non-being. It's not that they didn't have the concept or some who spoke of it.

>>25174101
Love is present in the lover and the beloved and between them. Love as one thing is this three/four parted thing.
A Good is like love. It's not just over there. But is also the very fact of desiring it and attaining it.
I.e to be valued and to value and be valuable are all aspects of goodness.
"Two sides of the same coin."
There weren't two senses of good, only two unified sides of what goodness is. Your minds are only too autistic.

>>25174092
It refutes the premise that the lesser of two seemingly conflicting values (actually means to those values) is inherently "false", which was your response to my refutation of the initial premise that was that a means to a desirable end is always desirable.

>>25174085
My reason to "do" anything is that I value it, or value it as a means to something. That would be the case whether values were subjective (as they are) or objective.

>>25174124
No it wasn't. Those were two completely different scenarios.
If a means is undesirable then the end is undesirable.
If an end is more desirable than the means is undesirable, then the means become desirable even though it wouldn't be desirable in itself without the end. And vice versa: a desirable end becomes undesirable if the means are more undesirable than the end is desirable
We don't do deontology in these parts.

>>25174130
>"I like being in the cave and staring at shadows."

File: Screenshot_20260329-153108~2.jpg (47 KB, 1096x558)

47 KB JPG

>>25174130
>Molesting newborns is just what I happen to value most you can't judge me

>>25174137
I desire to provide for my wife. I also desire to spend time with my wife. Means of providing for my wife: working long hours at my current job. Means of spending time with my wife: not working long hours at my current job. Means of doing both: finding a better job in which I make lots of money without working longer hours. In the scenario in which I haven't yet considered getting another job, or perhaps just haven't come across an opportunity which I am certainly to do, which end is false and actually undesirable?

>>25174140
Okay?
>>25174148
Never made that claim.

>>25174101
No, we don't.

Who is winning?

>>25174150
See the inverse of
>>25174092

That there's uncertainty is just the nature of human life at this stage

>>25174153
Epstein did.
Was Epstein wrong because most people happen to think he was?
Then he wasn't wrong. Since most people on his island shared his values they were a majority locally.
If subjectivism is true then no one is right or wrong and yet everything is right and wrong at the same time.

>>25174162
You said:
> If a means is undesirable then the end is undesirable.
I have demonstrated that the means I have for providing for my wife run counter to spending time with my wife and the mwans I have for spending time with my wife run counter to providing for my wife. Now, according to you undesirable means make an end undesirable. You've repeated this and repeated it again. So, is one of my desired ends (providing for my wife, and spending time with my wife) "false", or are you wrong in saying that undesirable means always make an end undesirable, or are you uncertain at this point?

>>25174166
> If subjectivism is true then no one is right or wrong
Unless nihilism is also true, in which case there is no right nor wrong. You can still judge people - not sure why you think that would cease to be possible, or do you think judging would be wrong in a world in which there is no wrong (and hence judging can't be wrong)?

>>25174180
>>25174137
>If an end is more desirable than the means is undesirable, then the means become desirable even though it wouldn't be desirable in itself without the end.

What a pointless thread, heheh
the irony of my post

>>25174187
You'd be unjustified and it (judging) would be something that happens to you that you have no reason to identify with

>>25174193
And you think that if values were objective there would be more reason to identify with them?

>>25174209
Objective value is reason itself, "there are justifiable reasons" = "there are objective values".
Objective is that which is justified. It is true because is truth.
And valuing it would only belong to you if being valued belonged to it—this is the proof against creation from nothing and why Christianity/Islam is nihilism with extra steps.

>>25174193
I may not have a reason for valuing a specific thing, but I alas I still do, and I cannot help it. The reason for identifying with the value is that one feels comfortable and enjoys doing things in line with their values. What there is no reason for is not identifying with one's values, even if they are (as they are) arbitrary.

I like eating pussy because I like eating pussy. I don't need a reason for it. I just like eating pussy. I like the taste, the pleasure it gives me, the pleasure I hear in her moans. It doesn't need to fulfill any objective value.

>>25174213
Subjective value is reason enough, justification enough

>>25174219
You are dead fish in the river, carried along by happenstance.
>>25174223
This is a good onto itself, needs no external justification, an icon of God himself as he first eats the pussy of creation before seeding the womb of the world with our souls.

>>25174235
>You are dead fish in the river, carried along by happenstance.
Dead implies I was once alive. I'm only as alive as the water itself.

>>25174232
Then it would be a god, and you'd subscribe to a pluralist polytheism were every subjective impulse was the absolute of itself. Each an autotheos.
And this would make science impossible because you've done away with the justification for science and causes. Now everything just plops into being and that there's this apparent relation of causality between things is uuh just because dunno senpai

>>25165817
If nothing is true then it cannot be true that contradicting yourself is bad.

Checkmate.

>>25174245
Correct. Everything simultaneously is true and false.
But this means the truth that contradiction cannot be true (because it doesn't permit simultaneity of contraries to itself). And through the simultaneity the infinite collapses to 1 objectivity and you become wrong.

>>25174241
I've been clear and you're not following, so there is no point in continuing.

>>25174255
That which justifies itself is divine.
If everyone's values are self-justified, despite all their incompatible disagreements, then, each of a subject's values is an Autotheos and each subject its sole worshipper.