nihilism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by iambiguous »

Thomas Nagel
The Absurd
In ordinary life, to be sure, we do not judge a situation absurd unless we have in mind some standards of seriousness, significance, or harmony with which the absurd can be contrasted.
In other words, in ordinary life we interact with others socially, politically and economically. And, so, as a "for all practical purposes" consequence of that, we can find ourselves in situations where, based on our own rooted subjectively in dasein moral convictions, we come to judge the convictions of others as absurd.

For example, some here insist it would be absurd to reelect Donald Trump to the White House in 2024. Others, however, insist it would be absurd for Jack Smith to recommend to the Justice Department that Donald Trump be indicted on criminal charges.

But that is entirely different from the manner in which the absurd is understood by those like me. From my frame of mind, value judgments related to Trump are derived existentially. And in a No God world there appear to be no fonts mere mortals can turn to in order to establish whether all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated "categorically and imperatively" to oppose either Trump's campaign or Trump's indictment.

No, absurdity for the moral nihilists of my ilk rests on the assumption that human interactions themselves are essentially meaningless ontologically and essentially purposeless teleologically. And that whatever the outcome for Trump, each of us one by one tumbles over into the abyss that is oblivion.

From the cradle to the grave we are all Sisyphus. Our lives themselves being that "immense boulder".

Then "intellectually" whatever this...
This contrast is not implied by the philosophical judgment of absurdity, and that might be though to make the concept unsuitable for the expression of such judgments. This is not so, however, for the philosophical judgment depends on another contrast which makes it a natural extension from more ordinary cases. It departs from them only in contrasting the pretensions of life with a larger context in which no standards can be discovered, rather than with a context from which alternative, overriding standards may be applied.
...means.

So, what does it mean to you, Mr. Serious Philosopher?

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195600
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by iambiguous »

Thomas Nagel
The Absurd
...philosophical perception of the absurd resembles epistemological skepticism. In both cases the final, philosophical doubt is not contrasted with any unchallenged certainties, though it is arrived at by extrapolation from examples of doubt within the system of evidence or justification, where a contrast with other certainties is implied.
You know what's coming [from me]:
The Really Big Questions:

Why something instead of nothing?
Why this something and not something else?
Where does the human condition fit into the whole understanding of existence itself?
What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, Matrix worlds?
Does God exist?
Of course, philosophers contemplating the absurd epistemologically much like me contemplating it existentially have to just shrug that part off...and carry on.

As Rumsfeld reminded us, whether in regard to the war in Iraq or the existence of existence itself, there are those things we don't even know that we don't even know.

And the beauty of contemplating philosophical knowledge for many philosophers is that the discussion itself can be confined to pinning down the correct definition of the words to be used in the dueling deductions.

For instance:
In both cases our limitedness joins with a capacity to transcend those limitations in thought (thus seeing them as limitations, and as inescapable).
Do your own deductions here line up with that?
Skepticism begins when we include ourselves in the world about which we claim knowledge. We notice that certain types of evidence convince us, that we are content to allow justifications of belief to come to an end at certain points, that we feel we know many things even without knowing or having grounds for believing the denial of others which, if true, would make what we claim to know false.
Indeed, as soon as I include myself here, then [sooner or later] I'll begin to ponder the extent to which my philosophical assessment of the absurd can be intertwined with those things that "I" construe to be absurd given "my" understanding of the world around me. The parts that revolves around "conflicting goods" for example.

How about you? Given a particular context in which you seek to intertwine the essential, philosophical absurdity of existence with your own existential, rooted in dasein assessments of it -- reelecting Trump, indicting Trump -- what of the absurd then?

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195600
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by iambiguous »

Thomas Nagel
The Absurd
...I know that I am looking at a piece of paper, although I have no adequate grounds to claim I know that I am not dreaming; and if I am dreaming then I am not looking at a piece of paper.
Once we bring the absurd here of course it all spirals down into "the gap" and "Rummy's Rules". The Matrix itself on steroids. We are completely at a loss to know for certain where ontologically and/or teleologically all that we construe "here and now" to be either meaningful or purposeful fits into the "staggering vastness of all there is".

If there is a God, it would be the equivalent of His very own "rabbit hole".
Here an ordinary conception of how appearance may diverge from reality is employed to show that we take our world largely for granted; the certainty that we are not dreaming cannot be justified except circularly, in terms of those very appearances which are being put in doubt.
Yep. How is that not basically how it is? On the other hand, there it is: the actual life that we live with all of its seemingly flesh and blood obligations and responsibilities. After all, how many among those we interact with will go along with just sweeping it all under the rug metaphysically?
It is somewhat far-fetched to suggest I may be dreaming; but the possibility is only illustrative. It reveals that our claims to knowledge depend on our not feeling it necessary to exclude certain incompatible alternatives, and the dreaming possibility or the total-hallucination possibility are just representatives for limitless possibilities most of which we cannot even conceive.}
Back to this part:

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

In fact, the objectivists here, in my view, are particular adept at convincing themselves that none of this is applicable to them. Not only is there nothing they don't know about the either/or world, there is nothing they don't know about how we ought to interact in it either.

Especially when they go about rejecting my own subjective assumptions as an utterly incompatible alternative. Incompatible in other words with the comfort and the consolation they suckle on when nestling down in their own "arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian" dogmas.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195600
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by iambiguous »

Thomas Nagel
The Absurd
Once we have taken the backward step to an abstract view of our whole system of beliefs, evidence, and justification, and seen that it works only, despite its pretensions, by taking the world largely for granted, we are not in a position to contrast all these appearances with an alternative reality. We cannot shed our ordinary responses, and if we could it would leave us with no means of conceiving a reality of any kind.
Again, once we react to this particular "intellectual contraption" as individuals, how will we communicate our reaction to it in regard to the lives that we live from day to day in interacting with others? Lives that can come into conflict over value judgments. Or are there "alternative realities" propounded?

And what for all practical purposes does it mean to "shed our ordinary responses"? To what in particular? And can our responses not evolve and change given new experiences...new information and knowledge?

And, in regard to the overwhelming preponderance of interactions with others from day to day, we are in fact able to take much of the world around us for granted.

What significant insight here is he proposing? Because whatever it is it just gets submerged [for me] in the numbingly abstract nature of of this "philosophical assessment".

So, which particular aspects of which particular world that we do live in are taken for granted? Do others take them for granted in much the same way? Is our communication about them coherent and intelligible? How far can we sustain it until it breaks down?

He'll go this far:
It is the same in the practical domain. We do not step outside our lives to a new vantage point from which we see what is really, objectively significant. We continue to take life largely for granted while seeing that all our decisions and certainties are possible only because there is a great deal we do not bother to rule out.
Exactly. And why don't we rule it out? Because in regard to our interactions with others in the either/or world there is no reason to. There are countless things that can demonstrably be shown to be true for all of us...day after day after day after day.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by iambiguous »

Thomas Nagel
The Absurd
In viewing ourselves from a perspective broader than we can occupy in the flesh, we become spectators of our own lives.
In other words, "for all practical purposes", whatever that means. You know, without an actual context.
We cannot do very much as pure spectators of our own lives, so we continue to lead them, and devote ourselves to what we are able at the same time to view as no more than a curiosity, like the ritual of an alien religion.
In other words, most of us are awash in social obligations and responsibilities given our interactions with others. In order to, among other things, pay the bills. We can't just be spectators if we choose to interact with them in a community. They see to that. So, while we can contemplate the "absurd" here philosophically, once we are around others, "real life" takes over.
This explains why the sense of absurdity finds its natural expression in those bad arguments with which the discussion began. Reference to our small size and short lifespan and to the fact that all of mankind will eventually vanish without a trace are metaphors for the backward step which permits us to regard ourselves from without and to find the particular form of our lives curious and slightly surprising.
In other words, whatever that means. But here's the thing: philosophically and otherwise, it does mean something to most of us. Being "infinitesimally insignificant specks of existence in the vastness of all there is" few of us are not grappling to find something -- anything -- to subsume "the fact that all of mankind will eventually vanish without a trace" in. God for the vast majority of course but there are many other "isms" we can embody to vanquish the absurd.

Take for example our very own fulminating fanatic objectivists fiercely defending their own didactic dogmas. Here, tweedledee and tweedledum. But so, so, so many others.

Then back to what on earth this means:
By feigning a nebula's-eye view, we illustrate the capacity to see ourselves without presuppositions, as arbitrary, idiosyncratic, highly specific occupants of the world, one of countless possible forms of life.
Not actually countless, of course. There were 7.837 billion of us in 2021.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195600
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by iambiguous »

Thomas Nagel
The Absurd
Why is the life of a mouse not absurd? The orbit of the moon is not absurd either, but that involves no strivings or aims at all. A mouse, however, has to work to stay alive. Yet he is not absurd, because he lacks the capacities for self-consciousness and selftranscendence that would enable him to see that he is only a mouse. If that did happen, his life would become absurd, since self-awareness would not make him cease to be a mouse and would not enable him to rise above his mousely strivings. Bringing his new-found self-consciousness with him, he would have to return to his meagre yet frantic life, full of doubts that he was unable to answer, but also full of purposes that he was unable to abandon.
There's just no way, in my view, that we can ever arrive at something definitive to conclude about all of this.

For one thing, we don't even know for certain if the life that we live is or is not entirely interchangeable with the life of mice. Why? Because if our brain, like the mouse brain, is wholly in sync with the laws of matter, doesn't that make our life no less fated/destined than the life of the mouse?

Back to this:
All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.
Only [of course] our brain, unlike the mouse brain, is self-conscious. And self-conscious to the point where our species has evolved to the point where we are matter actually able to invent...philosophy? Even metaphysics itself?

But: is that what absurdity is really all about? The mouse's life can't be absurd because it has no capacity to ponder what it means to be a mouse? Let alone ponder why there exists something instead of nothing, and this something instead of something else?

Is that what makes you and I absurd? We can ponder these things but are unable to actually demonstrate that in fact our existence can be connected all the way back to a teleological source?

Something along the lines of God...or a philosopher king?

And what still boggles our mind is that we really don't know what it is like to "think" and to feel" and to "want" and to "need" like other animals. We are exactly like them in that we must subsist...we feed ourselves, we drink water, we reproduce ourselves, we defend ourselves.

Only that all unfolds in a sea of memes. Something other animals know nothing about.

For me, the absurd revolves around the assumption that, in a No God world, there does not appear to be an essential meaning or purpose that we can anchor I to. Our meaning and our purpose is profoundly existential. Rooted largely in dasein.

Then back to the futility of grappling even with that given "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule".
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by iambiguous »

Thomas Nagel
The Absurd
The final escape is suicide...
Right. Let's probe as many suicides as we can in order to determine how many revolved around grim circumstantial trials and tribulations and how many revolved philosophically around the absurdity of life. Although, sure, if your life is in the toilet and you are convinced it's all essentially meaningless and purposeless, there might be a very real connection between them for some. I know that if, in the end, I opt for suicide, they will be connected. After all, if I was able to convince myself to embrace one or another God and one or another One True Path to immortality and salvation how could that not make all the difference in the world?
...but before adopting any hasty solutions, it would be wise to consider carefully whether the absurdity of our existence truly presents us with a problem, to which some solution must be found---a way of dealing with prima facie disaster. That is certainly the attitude with which Camus approaches the issue, and it gains support from the fact that we are all eager to escape from absurd situations on a smaller scale.
Here I always return to how, circumstantially, given a life brimming with all manner of satisfying experiences and fulfilling accomplishments, well, how many folks do you know who would construe the "absurdity of existence" as a problem? Besides, it's not for nothing that most of us turn to Scripture when things go south rather than the Myth of Sisyphus. Either that or [here in America] they go shopping.

As for "prima facie disasters"...you tell me.
Camus---not on uniformly good grounds---rejects suicide and the other solutions he regards as escapist.
Of course he was Camus, right? Brilliant, handsome, charming...a "philosophy chick" magnet.
What he recommends is defiance or scorn. We can salvage our dignity, he appears to believe, by shaking a fist at the world which is deaf to our pleas, and continuing to live in spite of it. This will not make our lives un-absurd, but it will lend them a certain nobility.
What I wouldn't give to have him still around reacting to my own existential quandaries.
You know, instead of you folks.

Just joshing of course. :wink:

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195600
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by iambiguous »

Thomas Nagel
The Absurd

Conclusion...
If a sense of the absurd is a way of perceiving our true situation (even though the situation is not absurd until the perception arises), then what reason can we have to resent or escape it?
This may well be the most crucial point being raised here. And it revolves entirely around my own assumption regarding dasein. The "human condition" is such there are aspects of our lives that all of us experience without exception. The need to subsist: water, food, clothing, shelter. A common biology. Sense organs. Brains capable of reasoning. Indoctrination as children. Experiences as adults.

But depending on that indoctrination and on those uniquely personal experiences as adults, some may go all the way to the grave and never have cause to perceive "the absurd" in their lives.

And even if someone does, there does not appear to be a way to establish [philosophically or otherwise] that Nagel's own assessment of the absurd is our "true situation". For all the reasons I note above and for all the reasons others note given their own individual assumptions regarding the meaning and the purpose of human existence.

So, what does it really mean then to resent or to escape something that can never truly be ascertained to be either ontologically or teleologically the case? Unless, of course, someone here is prepared to establish that, objectively, one and/or both can be so ascertained.
Like the capacity for epistemological skepticism, it results from the ability to understand our human limitations.
Cue "the gap". Cue "Rummy's Rule".

Or, sure, again, as some here do, given human autonomy, scoff at all that and argue as though you really do grasp all of this: The. Way. It. Really. Is.
It need not be a matter for agony unless we make it so. Nor need it evoke a defiant contempt of fate that allows us to feel brave or proud.
The part embedded existentially in dasein. At least until someone is able to establish [philosophically or otherwise] whether all rational men and women are obligated to either feel agonized by it or defiant of it.
Such dramatics, even if carried on in private, betray a failure to appreciate the cosmic unimportance of the situation. If sub specie aeternitatis there is no reason to believe that anything matters, then that doesn't matter either, and we can approach our absurd lives with irony instead of heroism or despair.
His final assumption. As though he himself in terms of either cosmology or cosmogony can establish objectively the importance or unimportance of the human species in the universe/multiverse.

And then this part: "for all practical purposes", in regard to the behaviors we choose, it can very much matter what we conclude about this. After all, isn't the absurdity of the human condition that which some will fall back on to rationalize, say, being a sociopath? Isn't it basically the foundation upon which the "in the absence of God all things are permitted" frame of mind is anchored?

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195600
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: nihilism

Post by popeye1945 »

There is only meaning in the world that biological consciousness bestows upon it, otherwise it is a barren rock; life give the world meaning and values what it needs to live a human life.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by iambiguous »

What Nihilism Is Not
Nolen Gertz
Nihilism, not unlike time (according to Augustine) or porn (according to the U.S. Supreme Court), is one of those concepts that we are all pretty sure we know the meaning of unless someone asks us to define it.
Not only that but any number of philosophers here will insist that until we do come to an agreement on what the definition of nihilism is, there is no little or no hope of truly grasping it. Worse, until we pin down the most technically correct philosophical definition of it, there's no point in attempting to explore the actual existential implications of it in regard to human social, political and economic interactions.

Right.

I don't define it myself so much as attempt to explain what it means to me existentially given the life I have lived. On this very thread for example.
Nihil means “nothing.” ---ism means “ideology.” Yet when we try to combine these terms, the combination seems to immediately refute itself, as the idea that nihilism is the “ideology of nothing” appears to be nonsensical.
I agree. Yet there are still those who insist that I myself am embracing nihilism ideologically. That I am myself but another of the "objectivists" that I seem so willing to revile.

Well, I don't think of myself that way at all. The ideology of nothing? But even that is something. And, existentially, from day to day, there are tons and tons of things that are not only meaningful to each and everyone of us, but are meaningful in exactly the same way.

No, the part where nihilism comes in for those like me revolves around the assumption [and that's all it can ever be] that there is No God. There is no actual entity that we can attach ourselves to such that meaning itself is given -- both ontologically and teleologically -- a necessary, essential foundation. And both before and after the grave.
To say that this means that someone “believes in nothing” is not really much more helpful, as believing in something suggests there is something to be believed in, but if that something is nothing, then there is not something to be believed in, in which case believing in nothing is again a self-refuting idea.
Exactly!

That's why so much of this revolves around language itself. There are just inherent gaps between words and worlds. We can't encompass everything "out in the world" such that everything out in the world can be "named" with an unerring accuracy. Ayn Rand to the contrary. It's just that the language we employ pertaining to both value judgments and the Big Questions is likely ever to be considerably more problematic.

Is abortion immoral? Are women free -- autonomous -- in choosing an abortion?

Go ahead, pin that down objectively with language.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195600
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: nihilism

Post by popeye1945 »

As long as there is biology/life in the world there will be meaning, in the absence of which it wouldn't matter anyway.
tonterias
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2023 2:22 am

Re: nihilism

Post by tonterias »

[quoteOn the other hand, in the absence of God, as has been noted by some, "all things are permitted".][/quote]

On the other hand all things can be permitted and justified in the name of God or religion. That which we would consider wrong such as killing or discriminating against others has been justified in the name of God or religion.
A belief in God does not mean the absence of violence or killing. For a clear illustration of this one has to look no further than the followers of Isis or some other extremist muslim group.
Whenever they commit some atrocity or heinous act what is it they shout? God is great!!!
Which for me personally makes the word "God" a repulsive almost obscene word. In my vocabulary a distasteful one.
Some will argue that these brainwashed fanatics are not real muslims, or they are not following the real islamic religion.
But the fact they do believe that they are following islamic teachings, does puts a really big hole in the argument, that a belief in God will guarantee a person will act ethically or
morally better, than someone who doesn't believe in one.
It's not just islam either one can see this same bigotry in other religions.
In the past christianiy had it's inquisition and crusades.
In medieval times christians were no more tolerant than today's islamic fanatics or extremists.
Also even among Hindus one can see some of this intolerance or bigotry towards non-hindus.
There have been reports in India of Hindus attacking/killing christians. Although this might be rare and certainly not as common as muslims attacking/killing christians. But this does exist and certainly goes to show that even a belief in God doesn't guarantee any moral superiority.
Believing that a belief in God (or gods) makes a person ethically or morally better is extremely naive.
To reiterate my point earlier "all things can be permitted and justified in the name of God".
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by iambiguous »

What Nihilism Is Not
Nolen Gertz
Nihilism versus Pessimism

If optimism is hopefulness, then pessimism is hopelessness. To be a pessimist is to say, “What’s the point?” Pessimism is often likened to a “Glass is half empty” way of seeing the world, but since it’s only half empty this scenario might still be too hopeful for a pessimist. A better scenario might be that, if a pessimist fell in a well, and someone offered to rescue him, he’d likely respond, “Why bother? In the well, out of the well, we’re all going to die anyway.” In other words, pessimism is dark and depressing. But it is not nihilism.
And it's not nihilism [in my view] because pessimism generally revolves around circumstances. Your life is in the toilet and you don't see any realistic possibility of coming up out of it. So, sure, why not just flush it all away. Besides, there's no getting around death anyway.

Whereas a nihilist [as I understand it] can not only be up out of the toilet but veritably awash in circumstances that bring him or her an avalanche of fulfillment. One can be a nihilist and still relish the food one eats, the family one loves, the job one has, the sports one pursues, the arts one craves, the sex one engages in. Existential meaning and purpose are still everywhere

Nihilism as a philosophy of life, however, revolves more around the realization that in a No God world there is no way in which to determine what one's meaning and purpose ought to be. There is no way to pin down an objective morality. There is no way to get around the fact that eventually one does die and that ultimately everything that is "I" becomes essentially meaningless and purposeless. Is, in fact, obliterated.

Then it comes down existentially to how each of us as individuals, living our at times very different lives, come to embody our own subjective assessment:
In fact, we might even go so far as to say that pessimism is the opposite of nihilism. Like nihilism, pessimism could be seen as arising from despair. The fact of our death, the frustration of our desires, the unintended consequences of our actions, the tweets of our political leaders, any or all of these could lead us to either nihilism or pessimism. However, where these two roads diverge is over the question of whether we dwell on our despair or hide from it.
From my frame of mind, despair is no less embedded existentially either in circumstances or in an overarching philosophy of life. And things really can get bleak when one's life becomes such that the despair is deeply embedded in both. You don't have the circumstantial pleasures to outweigh the grim philosophical assessment. Both existentially and essentially your life becomes empty and desolate.

So, pessimism and nihilism may be well apart for some but very much in sync for others.

As for "dwelling on" or "hiding from" it, that almost always depends on where you are in your life "here and now".

Given my own life "here and now", I'm still optimistic that in the foreseeable future there is no need for pessimism. But I know that is only a matter of time before "Fowles's phones" begin to ring and the glass goes tumbling to the floor shattering into pieces.

That's when a No God nihilistic perspective comes into sync with the "circumstances". That's more or less what it's all about when you are "waiting for godot".

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195600
Last edited by iambiguous on Wed Feb 08, 2023 6:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: nihilism

Post by Gary Childress »

I think I tend toward nihilism in so far as I think a person's conduct doesn't necessarily have much effect on the overall outcome or quality of their life. I mean, I haven't seen a lot of advantages to many things that one may normally think advantageous. I've stayed away from illegal drugs and I actually think I'm no better off than a lot of people who have at least done a little experimentation with them. Pretty women tend to think I'm nerdy and no fun. Heck, a very pretty lady I'm hopelessly crazy for told me, "we need to get you stoned one day." She looks down on me and won't have a thing to do with me.

Some say coming from a two-parent biological family household should increase the chances of success of a person. I've met a lot of very determined go-getters who come from "broken" families, even foster kids who are very successful. Both my parents have stayed together throughout my life and it didn't seem to stop me from getting mentally ill and being shy and withdrawn. Kids I know from "broken" families seem to be much more outgoing and popular among their peers compared to me. Many of the "coolest" kids I knew in high school who had friends and popularity galore seemed to be from broken families, families plagued by substance abuse or who smoked like chimneys. I stayed out of trouble in life for the most part, didn't smoke in the bathroom at school etc. Didn't do a thing for me that I can tell.

Can't say I recommend the "straight and narrow" path. Didn't do much for me.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: nihilism

Post by Gary Childress »

If I were a father, I would probably, in light of my experience, recommend they party and do at least some drugs. At least maybe they wouldn't be lonely, and unpopular. Heck, I might even deliberately divorce their mother, just so they fit in and get along well with probably 90% of the rest of the beautiful kids around them. This staying out of trouble thing is for the birds. By all means, go out, rock the boat, and carry on as much as you can--lest you end up like me.
Post Reply