nihilism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by iambiguous »

Again, let's bring this down to Earth. The mass shooting in Buffalo. It certainly seems to have unfolded in the cosmos. The shooter as well.

But then this part: his motives, his intentions.

Why did he choose to do what he did? How are the cosmic and the existential elements intertwined here? His Self in the either/or world and his "self" in the is/ought world.

And then our own individual reactions to it. What can be pinned down as in sync with the cosmos itself? And what seems instead to be embedded subjectively in our own individual lives lived in our own individual ways predisposing us to think our own individual opinions about things like "replacement theory" and race?
phyllo wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 12:48 pm He lives in a particular society and in a time and place. That's embedded in the cosmos.

Our reactions are also based on time, place, society. Also embedded in the cosmos.
Again, who is arguing that anything unfolding here on planet Earth relating to race and the "great replacement theory" is not in the cosmos?

It's the fact that because each of us as individuals at any given time and place in any given society will bring our own childhood indoctrination and our own unique trajectory of personal experiences to these issues that precipitates the conflicts.
phyllo wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 12:48 pmIt's not about the process of resolving conflict. That's something else.
Something else to you perhaps, but my argument is that moral and political conflicts abound around the globe. And the objectivists turn to their own God or No God font: one of us vs. one of them.
phyllo wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 12:48 pmI wasn't addressing conflicts in my post. Nothing in my post was about conflict.
Fine. But you more than anyone else here know that in discussing nihilism my main interest revolves around the question, "how ought one to live in a world awash in both conflicting goods and in contingency, chance and change?"

If you wish to go elsewhere with nihilism, fair enough. But my interest pertains to connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then.
Sure, if this cosmic meaning -- a God, the God, your God, say -- carved a list of Commandments in stone, there would still be conflicts regarding what God means. But to the extent this God revealed Himself as the Real Deal and set Himself up to resolve disputes, come on, we would be interacting in a very different world, right?
phyllo wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 12:48 pmRight. If God was sitting around, micromanaging everything, the world would be very different.

But that's not the world we live in and I'm not discussing some sort of fiction.
But it's not at all fiction for any number of, among others, evangelical Christians. For tons of Christians [some here no doubt], Jesus Christ/God is due to return any day now. And it's not micromanaging everything that most religious folks concern themselves with. It's who goes up and who gets "left behind".
phyllo wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 12:48 pmPeople have all sorts of narratives.

A narrative is not the same as the human condition.

The human condition is still rooted in the cosmic.
Back to Buffalo then? Or over to Ukraine?
phyllo wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 12:48 pmAre those two questions supposed to be a response?
Yes. Though, of course, my mind frame of mind here is clearly different from yours.

Mine revolves around the conflicting moral and political narratives employed by those on opposite ends of the religious/ideological/deontological/genes vs. memes spectrum in regard to the "great replacement theory" and race. And in regard to Ukraine, Russia and Putin's attempt to bring the Soviet Union back together again...sans Marxism, socialism or Communism.
phyllo wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 12:48 pm Talk about living is not the same as living. Living is taking place within the cosmic.
Yes, that's my point. We can talk about Buffalo and Ukraine here..."philosophically". But out in the real world actual flesh and blood people are choosing behaviors that bring about actual consequences for other flesh and blood people.

As a moral nihilist, my aim is to explore Buffalo and Ukraine and all other global conflagrations given my own set of assumptions about dasein at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments, "rival goods" and political economy.

Not interested in taking nihilism there? Again, fair enough. Explore different aspects of it with others here. I've made it crystal clear, however, where my own emphasis lies.

As for your own emphasis on living taking place within the cosmos...I don't get it. Who here would deny that? Instead, the mystery here revolves around The Big Questions like why is there something instead of nothing, why this something and not something else, sim worlds, dream world, the Matrix. The multiverse. And truly perplexing quandaries that revolve around solipsism and around determinism.
The first step is to decide if there is a "human condition" or not. The author said that there is. Then logically, meaning is tied into that human condition in some way. But she avoids that conclusion. She disconnects meaning from the human condition and therefore from the cosmic. This seems to be a completely arbitrary decision on her part.
Or an existential decision rooted in dasein.
phyllo wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 12:48 pmThat's not a reason. That's trivial.
Again, trivial to you perhaps.
phyllo wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 12:48 pmShe may have real reasons for her decision which are not in the bits that you quoted. But based on what I read here, she is missing something.
What do you think she is missing? And discuss that given a particular context. Or given your own interactions with others from day to day.
No, the part about connecting the dots between the existential and the cosmic that seems to be far more problematic is in the realm of conflicting moral and political and spiritual value judgments. How do we acquire them? Why ours and not theirs?

What can in fact, objectively, be pinned down here?

As a moral nihilist, I have my set of assumptions. As a moral objectivist, you have yours.
phyllo wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 12:48 pm One has to examine the assumptions and the reasoning.

Just saying that everyone has assumptions is not saying much.
Okay, examine the assumptions and reasoning made by those on both sides of the political fence in regard to the great replacement theory and Ukraine. Is the truth [or lack thereof] here more a reflection of subjective personal opinions rooted in dasein or an objective reality rooted in God or ideology or deontology or nature.
trokanmariel
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

Re: nihilism

Post by trokanmariel »

Nihilism construction:

I endow, the technology-magic Kelly Brook (a top hat aristocrat) from time immemorial, identical to the UK model Kelly Brook, with the right-wing creation as non-accident of sociology inconvenience 101, which is that left-wing transcendence's rush back to origin ethos (an anti-matter to matter parody, and possibly the reason identity of demons and vampires) is no mirror to the right-wing creation's sustenance (self-sustenance) of its deadly superior of Mary Heath's of 11 New Street's explosion as self-containment as over the socialism through days horror politics.

The socialism through days horror politics archetype: possibly, its horror politics attribution is down to body glamour's concentration/speed morality possession's right-wing bias as conventional logic of right-wing immorality across the assembly's (the assembly consisting of emotion to supermarket, daylight as mediator, typing as revelation as one etc) identity identity possession by selection menus.

What else, may be the cause for the socialism through days (which actually means the problem of the same aristocratic history lesson being learnt through the philosophy matters as physics units deflecting body glamour's (Lucy Liu and Uma Thurman) monopoly distribution as capitalism as capitalism machine of physics) horror politics archetype?

Possibly, it is the meta publication daylight industry as Kelly Brook-Thomas Heath heel sex jumpings, relative to the jumpings' socialism to meta publication as patience of physics' keeping up with the metaphor heel.

Who is the metaphor heel: if physics is their opponent, then it naturally stands that the metaphor heel is the desire to crack on the heel.

Crack on the heel: it is a lucky, lucky statement of sex, for the top hat aristocrat Kelly Brook.

Nihilism's further construction:
Every event, is an ingenuity sex for the anti. This is nihilism, as the ingenuity of sex, embodied by Kelly Brook's meta woman (and of course, by the Earth version of Kelly Brooke herself), is the ideology of giving what can't be returned.

I can't give back, to the aristocrat meta Kelly Brook, her concrete philosophy as unification between concrete and philosophy as sustained difference divide of her top hat, nor can I give her back her heel to crack, but, I can give her the socialism through days-socialism through politics-socialism through circles-socialism through imagination assembly.

The American media's CNN archetype; yes, it follows the BBC as American to British meta theme of keeping up, however, the SS (symmetry socialism) wheel of Thomas Heath can go over the CNN tragedy complex as a safety (along the lines of animals as metaphor machine by the right-wing master) of the right-wing master's desire to give sex back to outer space
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by promethean75 »

"of the right-wing master's desire to give sex back to outer space"

Well when I stopped giving sex to my last girlfriend she became vast and silent like outer space.

Buh dum tshh

thank you, thank you.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Now we're heading in the right direction, towards chaos and gibberish.
If we believe in nothing, if nothing has any meaning and if we can affirm no values whatsoever, then everything is possible and nothing has any importance.” including meaningful dialogue, I add.
― Albert Camus, The Rebel
tags: existentialism, nihilism, philosphy
“Why do we argue? Life's so fragile, a successful virus clinging to a speck of mud, suspended in endless nothing.”
― Alan Moore, Watchmen
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by promethean75 »

Thank you. I love reading existentialist quotes that make me feel like a hopelessly irrelevant nothing that momentarily exists for no reason and is destined for eternal oblivion after death.

Only now do I feel so much more alive and pointless, and I want to thank you.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

promethean75 wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 10:26 pm Thank you. I love reading existentialist quotes that make me feel like a hopelessly irrelevant nothing that momentarily exists for no reason and is destined for eternal oblivion after death.

Only now do I feel so much more alive and pointless, and I want to thank you.
Oh, shit, you're right. Arguments are made by people.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by iambiguous »

Good news for nihilists? Life is meaningless after all, say philosophers
Tom Howell
at the CBC website
Tartaglia argues that his interpretation of nihilism relates to its history and the intellectual battles surrounding claims to know a factual reality, especially in European thought.
As for the thoughts we tend to focus in on over here in America, well, you tell me. Factual reality by and large still seems to revolve more around pop culture, mindless consumption and celebrity. Especially [of late] the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial.

Take European nihilism there and get back to us.
He points out that the widespread use of the word "nihilism" and the phrase "meaning of life" originates in a single decade at the end of the 1700s, when religious certainties broke down among scholars while scientific beliefs gained power. Tartaglia sees most modern anti-nihilist fears as a continuation of the intellectual panic that ensued back then.
Again and again: that's my point. Whenever it commenced, with or without Nietzsche, once science reached that tipping point where more and more things attributable first to "the Gods" and then to a God, the God, our God, were able to be explained as manifestations of nature understood through its laws, religion had less and less "mystery" to cling to in order to attribute them to the Gods or to a God, the God.

Then the birth of capitalism [along with the "Enlightenment"] sealed the deal.

Though, of course, not really. There's still the part about objective morality, immortality and salvation. All the science and enlightenment in the world don't make the hankering for them go away. And here God is still the only show in town.

Thus...
During that period, French religious conservatives railed against almost any form of reasoning and learning. To them, such pursuits risked a descent into nihilism as a result of extinguishing all divine mysteries. The supposedly threatening concept of nihilism often seemed inextricable from atheism or free thinking.
And what's the concept of nihilism next to the actual manifestation of it in our modern world? The global economy owned and operated by legions of "show me the money" amoral nihilists. Then the explosion of sociopaths who in a No God world root "morality" in "what's in it for me?"

How can we not be doomed?

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195600
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by iambiguous »

Good news for nihilists? Life is meaningless after all, say philosophers
Tom Howell
at the CBC website
'Life is the common ground'

Today, however, Tartaglia feels he must defend nihilism from both religious and atheist world views, since the latter have tended towards replacing the divine meanings of life with another non-human equivalent, such as a worshipful attitude toward technology. Tartaglia worries that too many leaders perceive technological advance as a force that must be allowed to progress regardless of whether humans desire the consequences or not.

"It could go in very bad directions," Tartaglia said. "And that's why nihilism seems worthwhile."
By and large, the advancement of technology still seems [to me] to be far more about means than ends. Does anyone here wish to see technology advanced as an end in itself?

Instead, this or that particular technology -- computers, the internet -- are used by those all up and down the moral, political, philosophical and spiritual spectrum. Whereas assessments of "progress" and "consequences" will almost always revolve around moral, political, philosophical and spiritual prejudices.

Which I then root subjectively, existentially in dasein. As opposed to the objectivists among us who root them in one or another "transcending font": God, ideology, "philosophy of life", genes > memes assessment of nature.

Same with defending or attacking nihilism. Choose any particular technology to accomplish it. In my view, neither side, using any technology [or no technology at all], comes out on top with the most rational conclusion.

What could go in very bad directions? And how are attitudes regarding nihilism mitigating or aggravating it?
On the positive side, Tartaglia argues that nihilistic attitudes offer a potential common ground upon which extremes of religion and secularism could meet, since it dispenses with all their competing claims to an ultimate meaning of life.
And what does this revolve around? Well, morally and politically, around "democracy and the rule of law". On the other hand, in regard to God and religion, how exactly would faiths meet somewhere in the middle when the various denominations argue precisely that in regard to morality here and now and immortality and salvation there and then, their path is the One True Path?

Which is why, given what is at stake on both sides of the grave, I've never really understood the "ecumenical" path.
"Life is the common ground," said Tartaglia. "If you're a nihilist, you don't think that anything goes beyond life. If you're not a nihilist, you think there's something extra. OK, but there's still this massive common ground. Fundamentalists on one side or the anti-religionist brigade … [with nihilism] we can all understand each other, right? We can all agree on life."
This, as most here know, is what I call a "general description spiritual contraption". And, given human history to date, it has almost nothing to do with, among other things, human reality to date.

Thus:
Tartaglia's optimism in this regard might appear out of all proportion with the world's many unending and brutal conflicts over much smaller doctrinal differences between all manner of groups, religious or otherwise. But then, a nihilist can dream.
Indeed, by all means, dream on...

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195600
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by iambiguous »

Moral Nihilism as Reflected By Joker in The Dark Knight Movie.
by Satrio Jagad
Introduction

Popular culture has been influencing people throughout the world. According to Ray B. Browne in Popular Culture Theory and Methodology: A Basic Introduction, popular culture is “all those elements of life which are not narrowly intellectual or creatively elitist, including the spoken and printed word, sounds, pictures, objects, and artifacts”.
So, how close to or far away from does one take nihilism here to the "lowest common denominator" assessment? How close to or far away from nihilism as you understand it to be, Mr. Philosopher, is the character Joker from the The Dark Knight? How narrowly intellectual and creatively elitist is Heath Ledger's portrayal of him in the film. As compared to, say, how he is captured by Joaquin Phoenix in Joker?
As a product of popular culture, movie is an effective tool to attract people. Nowadays, there are several genres of movie that exist. One of them is thriller genre. Among thriller movie directors, Christopher Nolan is known as the one who is talented as thriller movie director. The writer chooses one of Christopher Nolan’s movies, The Dark Knight, as the object of study. It depicts a story of Batman, one of the familiar superheroes from DC Comics, and his notorious enemy, Joker.
And movies, if nothing else, attracts [and then sustains] the "lowest common denominator" mentality in regard to many things. Reality and Hollywood? Way should nihilism be any different? Only characters like Joker and Hannibal Lector seem to attract minds able to conjure up actual philosophical discussions...out in the deeper depths of our postmodern world. In particular, a No God world where the answer to the question, "how ought one to live?" can bring on an explosion of conflicting narratives.

The superhero, comic book world Hollywood, where almost everything is dumbed down to a paint-by-numbers Good vs. Evil mentality has, what, accidently portrayed something in the vicinity of a close encounter with...ambiguity?

With, say, the thinking man's sociopath?

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195600
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:35 pm So, how close to or far away from does one take nihilism here to the "lowest common denominator" assessment? How close to or far away from nihilism as you understand it to be, Mr. Philosopher, is the character Joker from the The Dark Knight? How narrowly intellectual and creatively elitist is Heath Ledger's portrayal of him in the film. As compared to, say, how he is captured by Joaquin Phoenix in Joker
I can't tell if you are expressing views on the two portrayals or not. I truly loved them both, for different reasons. Did you think that Heath Ledger's portrayal was narrowly intellectual and creatively elitist? If so, why or in what way? Given that Ledger's performance was in a Hollywood film with a lot to satisfy the lowest common denominator, plus stuff aimed and successfully I think higher than that, I can see the LCD charge on the film, but I think Ledger created something beyond that. Phoenix's version and the film it is in was much more depressing. He's not a charismatic Joker, but an emotionally broken one.

But what did you think?
The superhero, comic book world Hollywood, where almost everything is dumbed down to a paint-by-numbers Good vs. Evil mentality has, what, accidently portrayed something in the vicinity of a close encounter with...ambiguity?
I think both films have a great deal of ambiguity. And Joker is pressing on that button with batman. I see neither character there as purely good or evil and the great love many have for Ledger's Joker shows that even what gets considered the middle and low brow audiance, to some degree gets that also. Pheonixs seems more mixed as far as victim/perpetrator and not very super as in supervillain. But we share some of both Joker's anger and distaste. Well, some do anyway.
With, say, the thinking man's sociopath?
YOu have an example.

A nihilist of course does not have to be a sociopath. And a sociopath need not be a nihilist, though that is more likely.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 9:23 pm
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:35 pm So, how close to or far away from does one take nihilism here to the "lowest common denominator" assessment? How close to or far away from nihilism as you understand it to be, Mr. Philosopher, is the character Joker from the The Dark Knight? How narrowly intellectual and creatively elitist is Heath Ledger's portrayal of him in the film. As compared to, say, how he is captured by Joaquin Phoenix in Joker
I can't tell if you are expressing views on the two portrayals or not. I truly loved them both, for different reasons. Did you think that Heath Ledger's portrayal was narrowly intellectual and creatively elitist? If so, why or in what way? Given that Ledger's performance was in a Hollywood film with a lot to satisfy the lowest common denominator, plus stuff aimed and successfully I think higher than that, I can see the LCD charge on the film, but I think Ledger created something beyond that. Phoenix's version and the film it is in was much more depressing. He's not a charismatic Joker, but an emotionally broken one.

But what did you think?
My own personal interest in nihilism revolves basically around two things...

1] moral nihilism in No God world. For me, it's not how these two characters -- as "personalities" -- came to be the way they are portrayed in the films; it's that, in being moral nihilists, they come to embody [each in their own way] the belief that "in the absence of God all things are permitted". Sociopaths, some would argue, for all practical purposes. Then it just comes down to exploring the sociopathic mentality more or less philosophically.

2] the role that dasein plays in creating individuals who come to construe themselves in this way.
The superhero, comic book world Hollywood, where almost everything is dumbed down to a paint-by-numbers Good vs. Evil mentality has, what, accidently portrayed something in the vicinity of a close encounter with...ambiguity?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 9:23 pmI think both films have a great deal of ambiguity. And Joker is pressing on that button with batman. I see neither character there as purely good or evil and the great love many have for Ledger's Joker shows that even what gets considered the middle and low brow audiance, to some degree gets that also. Pheonixs seems more mixed as far as victim/perpetrator and not very super as in supervillain. But we share some of both Joker's anger and distaste. Well, some do anyway.
For me, with respect to what we think, feel, say and do, ambiguity and ambivalence revolve around the assumption that we live in a No God world. And, further, that mere mortals in embracing one or another Humanist perspective, are only attempting to create a secular rendition of God's "transcending font". Something, anything that allows us to anchor the Self in a teleological foundation that then is able to provide us [psychologically] with the comfort and the consolation of believing that there is a Real Me able to be in sync with the Right Thing To Do.

It's just that with Humanism, the grim reality of oblivion is still there. So, some are able to think themselves into believing that they live on through their own particular Ism of choice.
With, say, the thinking man's sociopath?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 9:23 pmA nihilist of course does not have to be a sociopath. And a sociopath need not be a nihilist, though that is more likely.
Here, it always comes down to how each moral nihilist comes to think about his or her own reality.

And, from my frame of mind, that's all about the points I raise in the OPs here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

iambiguous wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 8:31 pm My own personal interest in nihilism revolves basically around two things...

1] moral nihilism in No God world. For me, it's not how these two characters -- as "personalities" -- came to be the way they are portrayed in the films; it's that, in being moral nihilists, they come to embody [each in their own way] the belief that "in the absence of God all things are permitted". Sociopaths, some would argue, for all practical purposes. Then it just comes down to exploring the sociopathic mentality more or less philosophically.

2] the role that dasein plays in creating individuals who come to construe themselves in this way.
OK, I responded to what you wrote about those characters. We could have discussed what interests (numbers 1 and 2) you through those characters, but you chose not to respond to what I responded to in your posts. IOW you wrote about something, I responded to it, and you did not respond to that. A discussion of your interests could have happened via those characters and your ideas about how Hollywood and others portray the nihilist and what this means, drawing in dasein and so on. But you opted out. So, we can leave it at that. Perhaps it would be better in the future not to write about things you are not interested in discussing OR be creative in managing your interests through things you bring up. Up to you obviously.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by iambiguous »

Moral Nihilism as Reflected By Joker in The Dark Knight Movie.
by Satrio Jagad
Joker will be analyzed as the representative of [the] moral nihilist figure.
Yes, that's always my own main interest in turn. There are, after all, those who go all the way out on the epistemological limb and speak of nihilism as though there is nothing at all that can really be known or communicated.

Then those who posit solipsism and sim worlds and hidden layers of reality that make the world we interact with others in from day to day pretty much a chimera as well.

Or the assumption that the entirety of human reality is wholly determined going all the way back to the Big Bang.

So, sure, we all have to draw the reality line here somewhere.

For me, it's moral nihilism in a No God world.

So, what is it for Joker? Well, being a comic book character himself, he's pretty much whatever we come to think he is.
Joker has a unique character and he is different from other villains in movies. While they committed crime based on personal revenge, economic fulfillment, Joker does it his own way. He does not obey rules, laws, or even morals. Based on those ideas, the writer includes Joker as a nihilist.
Okay, consider someone who does not obey rules, laws or morality a nihilist. There's still that part where he justifies that. Especially to himself. Suppose someone in "real life" decides to model his life on Joker from the movie. Eventually he gets caught. He's in prison and agrees to be interviewed. By one of us say.

What questions would you ask him?
Nihilism has several branches and one of them is moral nihilism. According to Donald Crosby on The Specter of the Absurd: Sources and Criticisms of Modern Nihilism, “moral nihilism denies the sense of moral obligation, the objectivity of moral principles, or the moral viewpoint”. Moral nihilism denies all moral values and does not believe something whether it is right or wrong to someone. Therefore, the writer will elaborate Joker as character by using moral nihilism theory.
A theory however still revolves by and large around what we believe "in our head" is true about moral nihilism. I'm always more inclined to take what we believe about it there down out of the didactic clouds and start connecting the dots between that and the actual behaviors we choose.

"I choose not to obey rules, laws or morality because..."

Then the part where, among others, philosophers here discuss and debate whether it is rational or irrational to live that way. But only insofar as they bring their own lives, their own behaviors into the exchanges.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195600
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:06 am
iambiguous wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 8:31 pm My own personal interest in nihilism revolves basically around two things...

1] moral nihilism in No God world. For me, it's not how these two characters -- as "personalities" -- came to be the way they are portrayed in the films; it's that, in being moral nihilists, they come to embody [each in their own way] the belief that "in the absence of God all things are permitted". Sociopaths, some would argue, for all practical purposes. Then it just comes down to exploring the sociopathic mentality more or less philosophically.

2] the role that dasein plays in creating individuals who come to construe themselves in this way.
OK, I responded to what you wrote about those characters. We could have discussed what interests (numbers 1 and 2) you through those characters, but you chose not to respond to what I responded to in your posts. IOW you wrote about something, I responded to it, and you did not respond to that.
That's because I created this thread with the intention of exploring nihilism in terms of both morality and the manner in which I consture morality itself as the embodiment of dasein.

This part -- https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library ... e-nihilism -- is of less interest to me.

Nihilism can lead one to either acts of creativity or acts of despair.

But [to me] the acts themselves revolve around the assumption that in a No God world all things are permitted. It's not so much "is this the right thing to do?" as it is "can I get away with it?"

You do what you do because, for whatever reasons rooted existentially in dasein, it gratifies you. You don't give a shit about the consequences of your behaviors for others. They are only a means to sustain your own personal -- personal -- "kingdom of ends".

That's precisely why sociopaths are so fucking scary: you can't reason with them.

What do you say to these guys: https://youtu.be/Y7-ZBa5QeEw

Maybe they like you and won't do you any harm. Here and now. But that can always change. Think the character Neil McCauley from the movie Heat: "Don't let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner."

That's the "discipline".

The heat being those who defend the rules, laws and morality in any given community. For the nihilist however it is always "me, myself and I".
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:06 amA discussion of your interests could have happened via those characters and your ideas about how Hollywood and others portray the nihilist and what this means, drawing in dasein and so on. But you opted out. So, we can leave it at that. Perhaps it would be better in the future not to write about things you are not interested in discussing OR be creative in managing your interests through things you bring up. Up to you obviously.
Up to me, up to you. Your interest in comic book characters -- in Hollywood movie characters -- and mine.

As though it might actually be possible here to pin down what we ought to be opting to discuss. :roll:
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: nihilism

Post by Belinda »

Thoroughgoing nihilism is incompatible with life. There is no such person as one who behaves as if there is no point in taking a breath when his carbon dioxide level is high.

Beliefs are not beliefs unless you want to act on them.
Post Reply