Nihilism is a Contradiction

[Eodnhoj7]

Nihilism precisely does not require or call proper any way of being. Nihilism (there are a few, but in general) means there is not a proper way to be or one cannot be determined.

To say there is no-way is to say anything goes, to say anything goes is to point to a very broad way of being.

One could be a nihilist and do anything or not do anything. It does not lead, necessarily, to a way of being or a set of ways of being. Being unconvinced that there is a morally right way to do things, for example, does not lead to any particular set of actions. One can, generally does, have a specific set of desires, wants, preferences and these lead to individualized sets of behaviors.

And moral belief systems lead to broad ranges of behaviors. Just look at the world of non-nihilists.

Notice what I responded to which you don't defend but ignore now...

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 11:26 pm
If nihilism is the proper way of being, in such a manner that "anything goes", then the opposite of nihilism, "not anything goes", results in a contradiction where there is a right and wrong way to act, "anything goes" vs. "not anything goes" respectively, therefore morality exists in contradiction to nihilism.

1) a nihilist (in general, again there are a number of nihilisms) CANNOT argue that there is a proper way of being. That would be a moral position about how to act in the world. Nihilists tend not to make that contradiction.
2) Somehow you turn a position that says that there is no correct way to act (or in some nihilisms 'no way to know what that would be') into an argument that one way of being is right.
3) it assumes that morals are the main drivers of behavior and necessarily more specific than other drivers. Individual desires, needs, wants, proclivities, interests are highly specific drivers.

1. "Either doing anything or not doing anything" is a way, or rather ways, of being.

2. Being unconvinced of a morally right way to do something leads to actions that are morally ambivalent, this leading to action "x" is a morality. In short terms in stating "there is no morality" is to create a morality through negation.

3. Moral belief systems often repeat, many have death rituals (funerals) and life rituals (marriage). Even the observance of sport is a ritual. And why this talk on ritual? Because morality, as a way of being, contains within it, as a part, ritual. Ritual is how drives are directed.

4. "Not arguing about a proper way of being" is a way of being through negation.

5. "Anything is permissible" is a way of being.

6. Morality is the direction of "Individual desires, needs, wants, proclivities, interests". Morality is how drives manifest as morality is a way of being with the drives being a facet of being.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nihilism can't be a contradiction because only propositions and statements can be contradictions, and nihilism isn't a proposition or a statement.

Now you might find statements made by nihilists that happen to be contradictions, but the position of nihilism itself neither stands or falls on a few contradicting statements, because it's too broad of a philosophy to be simplified like that.

a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.
"the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions"

a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
"the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction"
the statement of a position opposite to one already made.

https://www.google.com/search?q=contrad ... e&ie=UTF-8

[Eodnhoj7]

Eodnhoj7,
Indeed one's body is an object to one's self in the physical world and it is this object/body that is the interface between the physical world and ones conscious understanding of it. The subject is biological consciousness and object the physical world. However, the physical world is not conscious, does not experience thus have knowledge of the subject. Only the biological subject has the property of experience/knowledge/meaning thus it is the biological subject that bestows meaning upon the world, for meaning is the experience of the biological subject never of physical world as object. One's reality one's everyday reality is a biological readout, all meaning is the experience of the body and its understanding. There is nothing in the world that has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to biological consciousness and indeed ones own body in the physical world would be meaningless if it were not for its self-understanding and the perception of itself by others.

For your second observation, there is no real duality here for subject and object can never be two separate things or as Schopenhauer stated, subject and object stand or fall together, take one away and the other ceases to be. There is no contradiction here. People speak of subject and object duality merely as a convenience to understanding the relation between the two aspects of the one thing.

1. The physical world repeats phenomena thus is self-referential as repetition is inseparable from self-referentiality. As self-referential it is conscious to some degree. Consciousness is universal and is existence itself.

2. One cannot say "subject/object" is not a dichotomy without first observing that a dichotomy was first observed and then negated. "Two aspects of one thing" is the observance of a dualism which exists otherwise the two aspects would not exist.

The manifestation of subject/object is a manifestation of dualism where one does not entirely change the other. While the subject, me, may cause changes to this computer screen, the object, through typing there is still a distinct barrier between me (subject) and the screen (object) in the respect I cannot fully change it into let's say a grape fruit. The inability for the subject to completely change the object, and vice versa, necessitates distinction between subject and object.

Dually the change in one does not always correspond to the change in the other. For example the subject, me, may have changes in emotional states but this does not translate into changes within the object, the screen, even though the subject is exerting some change into the object. The key word is "some" and this "some" necessitates there still being a distinction between subject and object.

[Iwannaplato]

1. "Either doing anything or not doing anything" is a way, or rather ways, of being.

No, your confused. Nihilists could do anything, because nihilism does not lead to behavior. An individual nihilist cannot do anything because morals are not the only thing that leads to behavior.

Further non-nihilists do all sorts of things. They have multitudes of ways of being. Just as nihilists do. Look at at all the moralists fighting out there and hating, disliking, fighting against, the multitude of OTHER ways of being when having a morality.

2. Being unconvinced of a morally right way to do something leads to actions that are morally ambivalent,

ambivalent to whom????
Having a morally right way of being leads to behavior that other moralists will think is evil, not right, weird, dangerous, etc. Everyone is going to offends some significant part of the world's population through what one does or does not do. One will appear morally ambiguous to some large group, regardless. But being a nihilist does not compell one in any way to any particular way of being. Whatever way of being the specific nihilist chooses will offend some people just as every single moralist will offend some people.

Nice try with the implying the objectivity of 'morally abivalent' and that this is somehow a quality that nihilists will have and not ALL others according to subjective moral claims by someone.

this leading to action "x" is a morality. In short terms in stating "there is no morality" is to create a morality through negation.

First that's a non-sequiteur because a nihilist lacks a morality to judge actions and morals of others (on moral grounds). YOu can keep saying it, but it doesn't make any sense. Sure, there are hypocrits out there, who call themselves nihilists who then make moral judgements or say this way of life is better than that one (on moral grounds) but then they are not nihilists.

3. Moral belief systems often repeat, many have death rituals (funerals) and life rituals (marriage). Even the observance of sport is a ritual. And why this talk on ritual? Because morality, as a way of being, contains within it, as a part, ritual. Ritual is how drives are directed.

I odn't know why you are bringing up ritual in reponse to me.

4. "Not arguing about a proper way of being" is a way of being through negation.

But it's not claiming it is the proper one. Of course nihilists who talk about nihilism are doing something. Soemthing that non-nihilists generally do not do. But that is not a claim that it is the proper way of being. Nor is it a claim, more relevantly, that their actions are proper ones.

5. "Anything is permissible" is a way of being.

No, it's an assertion.

6. Morality is the direction of "Individual desires, needs, wants, proclivities, interests". Morality is how drives manifest as morality is a way of being with the drives being a facet of being.

I'm afraid your language is so sloppy that it's hard to know what you are saying and further creates so much work.

I'll leave it here.

[popeye1945]

Heraclitus, "To god all things are right and good, only to man somethings are and somethings are not."

[Eodnhoj7]

1. "Either doing anything or not doing anything" is a way, or rather ways, of being.

No, your confused. Nihilists could do anything, because nihilism does not lead to behavior. An individual nihilist cannot do anything because morals are not the only thing that leads to behavior.

Further non-nihilists do all sorts of things. They have multitudes of ways of being. Just as nihilists do. Look at at all the moralists fighting out there and hating, disliking, fighting against, the multitude of OTHER ways of being when having a morality.

2. Being unconvinced of a morally right way to do something leads to actions that are morally ambivalent,

ambivalent to whom????
Having a morally right way of being leads to behavior that other moralists will think is evil, not right, weird, dangerous, etc. Everyone is going to offends some significant part of the world's population through what one does or does not do. One will appear morally ambiguous to some large group, regardless. But being a nihilist does not compell one in any way to any particular way of being. Whatever way of being the specific nihilist chooses will offend some people just as every single moralist will offend some people.

Nice try with the implying the objectivity of 'morally abivalent' and that this is somehow a quality that nihilists will have and not ALL others according to subjective moral claims by someone.

this leading to action "x" is a morality. In short terms in stating "there is no morality" is to create a morality through negation.

First that's a non-sequiteur because a nihilist lacks a morality to judge actions and morals of others (on moral grounds). YOu can keep saying it, but it doesn't make any sense. Sure, there are hypocrits out there, who call themselves nihilists who then make moral judgements or say this way of life is better than that one (on moral grounds) but then they are not nihilists.

3. Moral belief systems often repeat, many have death rituals (funerals) and life rituals (marriage). Even the observance of sport is a ritual. And why this talk on ritual? Because morality, as a way of being, contains within it, as a part, ritual. Ritual is how drives are directed.

I odn't know why you are bringing up ritual in reponse to me.

4. "Not arguing about a proper way of being" is a way of being through negation.

But it's not claiming it is the proper one. Of course nihilists who talk about nihilism are doing something. Soemthing that non-nihilists generally do not do. But that is not a claim that it is the proper way of being. Nor is it a claim, more relevantly, that their actions are proper ones.

5. "Anything is permissible" is a way of being.

No, it's an assertion.

6. Morality is the direction of "Individual desires, needs, wants, proclivities, interests". Morality is how drives manifest as morality is a way of being with the drives being a facet of being.

I'm afraid your language is so sloppy that it's hard to know what you are saying and further creates so much work.

I'll leave it here.

1. Doing anything is a behavior.

2. Morality is a way of being, considering all being has a way to act all being follows some form of morality.

3. Moral ambiguity does not result in opposing systems of morality as the opposite side can be reduced to "actions motivated by belief". Belief is the motivating factor thus does result in ambiguity when interpreted by an opposing side. However nihilism is ambiguous as the belief that anyone can to anything is a belief in nothing, thus no belief, as "anything" is indefinite.

4. Nihilism states "anything goes" thus morality and immorality go as well. In stating "anything goes" nihilism states something which is beyond "morality" and "immorality" thus state something which is "beyond being" as morality/immorality are ways of being. In stating "something beyond being" they are pointing to nothing as only being exists. Nihilism is a negation of being and as such is not only relative but is a way of being thus a morality.

5. Rituals direct drives and as such are part of morality. We know moral constants exist because across all moralities a ritual exists.

6. A proper way of being vs an improper one is a false dichotomy as what is proper exists as existence is truth. A nihilist may act proper or improper but this is only relative as any action taken is that which was determined by a prior action. This necessitates a morality as a way of being.

7. Assertions are an act of being thus a way of being.

8. Morality is how drives manifest. Morality is a way of being. These drives are a facet of being, thus are a facet of morality. Morality as the direction of being is the direction of drives.

[Eodnhoj7]

Heraclitus, "To god all things are right and good, only to man somethings are and somethings are not."

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods"’?

[popeye1945]

Heraclitus, "To god all things are right and good, only to man somethings are and somethings are not."

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods"’?

Eodnhoj,

Not quite the same meaning though is it?

[Eodnhoj7]

Heraclitus, "To god all things are right and good, only to man somethings are and somethings are not."

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods"’?

Eodnhoj,

Not quite the same meaning though is it?

"...only to [god] somethings are and somethings are not."

[popeye1945]

Meaning in nature/god there is no morality but only to man somethings are or are not right and good.

[Eodnhoj7]

Meaning in nature/god there is no morality but only to man somethings are or are not right and good.

"To god all things are right and good..."

"All things" includes morality, as well as immorality, therefore God sees contradiction as good.

[popeye1945]

Sorry I cannot make sense of that.

[Eodnhoj7]

Sorry I cannot make sense of that.

Morality is a thing.

Immorality is a thing.

God sees all things as good.

As seeing all things as good God sees the contradiction of morality/immorality as good as God sees both things as Good.

[popeye1945]

Sorry I cannot make sense of that.

Morality is a thing.
Immorality is a thing.
\God sees all things as good.

As seeing all things as good God sees the contradiction of morality/immorality as good as God sees both things as Good.

Eodnhoj7,
Morality is a concept not an object in the physical world. Immortality is a concept and not an object in the physical world. God sees all things as well and good is an inference that in fact, in god/nature there is no morality, there is only morality to a man who finds some things are good and something are not.

[CHNOPS]

Sorry I cannot make sense of that.

Morality is a thing.
Immorality is a thing.
\God sees all things as good.

As seeing all things as good God sees the contradiction of morality/immorality as good as God sees both things as Good.

Eodnhoj7,
Morality is a concept not an object in the physical world. Immortality is a concept and not an object in the physical world. God sees all things as well and good is an inference that in fact, in god/nature there is no morality, there is only morality to a man who finds some things are good and something are not.

Imagine an empy room. A cube, empy, and white.

Now, change it color to black.

What room is "better"?


God is white.

So white is Good.


"but... is I need to hide from someone, then a black room is better"

No. White room is still better. It just that you are Bad when you "need to hide".

Because "hide" es Bad, and "show" is Good.


Then, one need to recognize the Bad in ours decisions and actions, because they are "relative goods", but most of them are objetive bad.