nihilism

[iambiguous]

In Defense of Humorous Nihilism
John Marmysz looks on the funny side of absolute nothingness.

We find this attitude [above] articulated at the beginnings of Western philosophy, with Socrates’ development of his dialectical method of inquiry. In Plato’s Apology, for instance, where Socrates grills Meletus concerning the charges brought against him, Meletus claims both that Socrates is an atheist and that he teaches about gods not sanctioned by the state. Surely, Socrates insists, there is an inconsistency here, for one cannot both deny the existence of gods and teach their existence.

But then the part where philosophers [back then and still today] discuss and debate incongruities that revolve around things they are not even able to demonstrate the existence of. Like, well, the existence of the Gods? Philosophies revolving around meaning and morality predicated on entirely conflicting assumptions regarding good and evil.

Socrates’ strategy of rooting out, exposing and/or dissolving logical incongruities was eventually taken up and intensified by thinkers such as G.W.F. Hegel, who endeavored to demonstrate that nothing that exists can possibly be incongruous with anything else that exists.

Again, though, there have been and are now any number of men and women [philosophers or otherwise] who adamantly insist the only incongruities they recognize are the flagrant gaps between what they believe is true morally and politically and all those -- the fools! -- who refuse to become "one of us". 

And then those like me attempting to find a path up out of the grim hole I've dug myself down into in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics. I want there to be a One True path to Enlightenment and beyond. But I can't find any arguments [let alone demonstrable arguments] able to convince me "here and now" to dig deeper.

While certainly there are worldly phenomena that appear to clash with one another (such as masters and slaves), Hegel argues that in the end these incongruities work themselves out in a final historical synthesis comprehensible by minds clever enough to understand the underlying logic of the universe. All things, even those that appear to contradict one another, are really expressions of an underlying, unitary ‘absolute idea’ that can potentially be grasped by the human intellect. Worldly incongruities, in this Hegelian sense, are misconceptions masking a hidden, fully consistent universal Truth. For Hegel, ‘the real is the rational’.

There are other renditions of this, however. Marx and Engels gave it a go, didn't they? Only their dialectics revolved around materialism such that given the historical evolution of the means of production this would eventually result down the road in...Communism?

As for the rational being real, you tell me. Rational in what sense? Rational given what particular assessment of what particular sets of circumstances?
 
Hegel, the idealist. A synthesis that unfolds theoretically up in the philosophical clouds. An intellectual synthesis. Think Ayn Rand and her own metaphysical assumptions about the "human condition". 

On the other hand, there does not appear to be a way in which to either verify or falsify any of this existentially beyond leaps of faith.

God and/or No God dogmas. The psychology of objectivism, in other words.

[iambiguous]

In Defense of Humorous Nihilism
John Marmysz looks on the funny side of absolute nothingness.

The common strategy pursued by philosophers following in the footsteps of Socrates and Hegel has been to use the tools of logic to attempt to dissolve incongruities.

Does this sound like you? Do you make a distinction [as I do] between the use of philosophical tools in exploring the either/or and is/ought worlds? Or do you merely assume the two are interchangeable...as do philosophers convinced that others must embrace their own moral philosophy or they are necessarily wrong? Metaphysical morality as the Ayn Randroids seem intent on conveying it?

This helps to explain why it is that many of the greatest intellects in the history of the world, when they have encountered nihilism, have labored to ‘solve’ it, and proudly trumpet their successes at ‘overcoming’ this troubling conundrum.

Up in the philosophical clouds, for example. On the other hand, if anyone here is convinced that they themselves have overcome moral nihilism existentially, please note instances of this given your own experiences with conflicting goods.

As mentioned, nihilism consists of a specific kind of incongruity: it is an understanding that the real world can never be brought into harmony with superlative ideals. I call this dissonance between the ideal and the real ‘nihilistic incongruity’. As with most forms of incongruity, philosophers have traditionally been uncomfortable with nihilistic incongruity, seeing it as calling for either despair or for resolution, and nothing in between. But this is a false dilemma.

Let's just say that given the gap between how moral philosophers have come to understand the world "in their heads" [down through the ages] and their woeful in capacity to actually demonstrate a deontological ethics "for all practical purposes", speaks volumes [to some of us] regarding the capacity of philosophers themselves to resolve conflicting goods.

Other than "in their heads".

And given a world [a life] that you are convinced is essentially meaningless and purposeless, morally problematic and ends with a tumble down into the abyss that is oblivion, despair can often make perfect sense.

In my view, however, despair is more likely to revolve around the circumstances in your life rather than in any particular philosophical assessment. Therefore the worst of all possible worlds [again, for some of us] revolves around a despairing philosophy coupled with despairing day to day experiences.

[iambiguous]

In Defense of Humorous Nihilism
John Marmysz looks on the funny side of absolute nothingness.

If the world does contain truly unresolvable incongruities, it would be futile to attempt to carry out their logical reconciliation. Hegel was an optimist in thinking that true reality, when seen clearly, is incongruity free; but for nihilists the conflict between the real and the ideal is ongoing, unresolvable, and inescapable. As such, they must give up hope for any final resolution to their separation from perfection; hence the opening laments, ‘God is dead. Nothing matters. All is meaningless. Nothing is true.’

Hegel anchored one possible resolution in idealism, whereas those of Marx's ilk anchored it in materialism. Which as we now know came to encompass two very different assessments of thesis ---> antithesis ---> synthesis. Dialectics. Just don't mistake one for the other.

As for ‘God is dead. Nothing matters. All is meaningless. Nothing is true’...? Sheer speculation for the most part. After all, is there anyone among us who can demonstrate any of it? Just consider how inherently problematic "nothing is true" would seem to be. Does that include itself? Same for meaning. If all is meaningless that would include the conjecture that all is meaningless itself, right? And it seems to matter enough to note it. And a God, the God...how can He be demonstrated to have died unless He can first be demonstrated to have lived?

It is precisely because of the nihilist’s logically-irreconcilable incongruity between aspirations and the actual state of the world that many philosophers who have encountered it have either fallen into despair or chosen to ‘overcome’ nihilism by changing their fundamental beliefs about reality.

Still, given The Gap and Rummy's Rule, what on Earth does any of this really convey regarding the human condition? Whose aspirations pertaining to what set of circumstances? And, again, despair seems to revolve far more around the social, political and economic circumstances themselves than around any particular "philosophy of life". And one can change his or her beliefs over and again but that's not the same as demonstrating which set of beliefs are in fact applicable objectively to...who?

But there is a third option, and that is to adopt an attitude of humorous amusement toward the world’s absurd nature. If the human condition is viewed as a joke – something ludicrous, and necessarily marred by imperfection – then it makes sense to stop trying to treat it like a puzzle with some sort of clever solution.

Of course: how's that working out for you? Sure, some can accept it because, well, at any particular point in time existentially, their life might be bursting at the seams with all manner of satisfaction, fulfillment and accomplishment. But if it is down in the toilet...? If one is this close to flushing it?

Perhaps it would instead be more appropriate simply to linger in the presence of that incongruous gap between the way the world actually is and the way we wish it to be, staring into the abyss with fearless amusement. In so doing, nihilists might extract pleasure from a situation that would otherwise only bring frustration and pain.

If that actually becomes an option for you, go for it. But, for other nihilists, despair can become a very real [and entirely appropriate] reaction to the world around us. It all comes back to the manner in which I construe the meaning [and the for all practical purposes implications] of dasein here.

So why not laugh? After all, if it is true that nothing really matters, then the fact that nothing really matters doesn’t really matter either, does it?

Technically?

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no point to being nihilistic if one is truly nihilisitic.

[iambiguous]

There is no point to being nihilistic if one is truly nihilisitic.

And what might be "truly nihilistic" given particular sets of circumstances?

Start with a draft, okay? But then [eventually] really, really let me have it!

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no point to being nihilistic if one is truly nihilisitic.

And what might be "truly nihilistic" given particular sets of circumstances?

Start with a draft, okay? But then [eventually] really, really let me have it!

It really wouldn't matter now would it?

[iambiguous]

There is no point to being nihilistic if one is truly nihilisitic.

And what might be "truly nihilistic" given particular sets of circumstances?

Start with a draft, okay? But then [eventually] really, really let me have it!

It really wouldn't matter now would it?

Are you suggesting that all nihilists are in agreement regarding what nihilism means? Me, I make a crucial distinction myself between what things mean in the either/or world, i.e. I am not "here and now" an epistemic nihilist. Instead, I make the assumption [and that's all it is] that in a No God world there does not appear to be a philosophical/ethical argument able to establish an objective morality.

Indeed, just follow the news for a while and you will encounter "conflicting goods" day in and day out. There are any number of things in these conflicts that can in fact be communicated with little or no disagreement. On the other hand, going back to the birth of philosophy itself, there does not appear to be anything in the way of a deontological assessment of behaviors deemed to be either inherently good or inherently bad.

Yes, I describe myself as a moral nihilist. But even here I flat-out acknowledge I am unable to demonstrate [even to myself] that this is the case.

On the contrary, I'm always willing to listen to the arguments of the moral Objectivists. How about you...do you believe that in regard to meaning and morality that are objective truths?

Let's agree on a context and explore this.

[Eodnhoj7]

And what might be "truly nihilistic" given particular sets of circumstances?

Start with a draft, okay? But then [eventually] really, really let me have it!

It really wouldn't matter now would it?

Are you suggesting that all nihilists are in agreement regarding what nihilism means? Me, I make a crucial distinction myself between what things mean in the either/or world, i.e. I am not "here and now" an epistemic nihilist. Instead, I make the assumption [and that's all it is] that in a No God world there does not appear to be a philosophical/ethical argument able to establish an objective morality.

Indeed, just follow the news for a while and you will encounter "conflicting goods" day in and day out. There are any number of things in these conflicts that can in fact be communicated with little or no disagreement. On the other hand, going back to the birth of philosophy itself, there does not appear to be anything in the way of a deontological assessment of behaviors deemed to be either inherently good or inherently bad.

Yes, I describe myself as a moral nihilist. But even here I flat-out acknowledge I am unable to demonstrate [even to myself] that this is the case.

On the contrary, I'm always willing to listen to the arguments of the moral Objectivists. How about you...do you believe that in regard to meaning and morality that are objective truths?

Let's agree on a context and explore this.

I will let you choose the context...one of the infinite ones that exist. But if you choose one of the infinite possible one's how would you make the distinction of the choice being your from a random occurence in your mind? The randomness of even choosing the context, if such a thing could be called choice, would make any argument about the distinctions within nihilism meaningless.

We know of nihilism because of its distinction from meaning, thus for nihilism to be meaning must not only occur but be ever present for any contributions to nihilistic philosophy to continue.

Nihilism requires contrast thus a dependency on meaning. Without this distinction nihilism consumes itself and ceases to be.

[henry quirk]

nihilism consumes itself and ceases to be

Kinda the point of it, yeah? To be nada?

[iambiguous]

It really wouldn't matter now would it?

Are you suggesting that all nihilists are in agreement regarding what nihilism means? Me, I make a crucial distinction myself between what things mean in the either/or world, i.e. I am not "here and now" an epistemic nihilist. Instead, I make the assumption [and that's all it is] that in a No God world there does not appear to be a philosophical/ethical argument able to establish an objective morality.

Indeed, just follow the news for a while and you will encounter "conflicting goods" day in and day out. There are any number of things in these conflicts that can in fact be communicated with little or no disagreement. On the other hand, going back to the birth of philosophy itself, there does not appear to be anything in the way of a deontological assessment of behaviors deemed to be either inherently good or inherently bad.

Yes, I describe myself as a moral nihilist. But even here I flat-out acknowledge I am unable to demonstrate [even to myself] that this is the case.

On the contrary, I'm always willing to listen to the arguments of the moral Objectivists. How about you...do you believe that in regard to meaning and morality that are objective truths?

Let's agree on a context and explore this.

I will let you choose the context...one of the infinite ones that exist.  But if you choose one of the infinite possible one's how would you make the distinction of the choice being your from a random occurence in your mind?  The randomness of even choosing the context, if such a thing could be called choice, would make any argument about the distinctions within nihilism meaningless.

The moral conflagration I tend to focus on here is abortion. 

Why:

1] it literally revolves around life and death
2] it is a moral conflict that almost everyone is familiar with
3] it is the issue that [for me] deconstructed objective morality

As for what is meaningful, we don't even know for certain if what we do find meaningful we are in fact able to freely opt not to. It's just that -- click --  when doctors are discussing abortion as a medical procedure, "failures to communicate" are at a minimum. Why? Because human biology is what it is. 

Sex ---> Pregnancy ---> Abortion.
Sex ---> Pregnancy ---> Birth.

Whereas in regard to the morality of abortion what is the equivalent of this? In fact, failures to communicate here are veritably bursting at the seams. And have been going back to the birth of philosophy itself. 

We know of nihilism because of its distinction from meaning, thus for nihilism to be meaning must not only occur but be ever present for any contributions to nihilistic philosophy to continue.

Nihilism requires contrast thus a dependency on meaning.  Without this distinction nihilism consumes itself and ceases to be.

I have no idea what you are attempting to convey here. So, how about connecting the dots between your point above and
the morality of abortion.

Then the part where things like solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the matrix etc., intertwined in The Gap and Rummy's Rule going back to an explanation for the existence of existence itself...? 

[iambiguous]

nihilism consumes itself and ceases to be

Kinda the point of it, yeah? To be nada?

Of course, we all become nada in the cemetery.

Whatever that means?

That's why Gods are invented. Only henry's God is long gone. And he acknowledges that nada may well be his fate even if He does exist.

On the other hand, imagine IC's reaction to that.

[Eodnhoj7]

Are you suggesting that all nihilists are in agreement regarding what nihilism means? Me, I make a crucial distinction myself between what things mean in the either/or world, i.e. I am not "here and now" an epistemic nihilist. Instead, I make the assumption [and that's all it is] that in a No God world there does not appear to be a philosophical/ethical argument able to establish an objective morality.

Indeed, just follow the news for a while and you will encounter "conflicting goods" day in and day out. There are any number of things in these conflicts that can in fact be communicated with little or no disagreement. On the other hand, going back to the birth of philosophy itself, there does not appear to be anything in the way of a deontological assessment of behaviors deemed to be either inherently good or inherently bad.

Yes, I describe myself as a moral nihilist. But even here I flat-out acknowledge I am unable to demonstrate [even to myself] that this is the case.

On the contrary, I'm always willing to listen to the arguments of the moral Objectivists. How about you...do you believe that in regard to meaning and morality that are objective truths?

Let's agree on a context and explore this.

I will let you choose the context...one of the infinite ones that exist.  But if you choose one of the infinite possible one's how would you make the distinction of the choice being your from a random occurence in your mind?  The randomness of even choosing the context, if such a thing could be called choice, would make any argument about the distinctions within nihilism meaningless.

The moral conflagration I tend to focus on here is abortion. 

Why:

1] it literally revolves around life and death
2] it is a moral conflict that almost everyone is familiar with
3] it is the issue that [for me] deconstructed objective morality

As for what is meaningful, we don't even know for certain if what we do find meaningful we are in fact able to freely opt not to. It's just that -- click --  when doctors are discussing abortion as a medical procedure, "failures to communicate" are at a minimum. Why? Because human biology is what it is. 

Sex ---> Pregnancy ---> Abortion.
Sex ---> Pregnancy ---> Birth.

Whereas in regard to the morality of abortion what is the equivalent of this? In fact, failures to communicate here are veritably bursting at the seams. And have been going back to the birth of philosophy itself. 

We know of nihilism because of its distinction from meaning, thus for nihilism to be meaning must not only occur but be ever present for any contributions to nihilistic philosophy to continue.

Nihilism requires contrast thus a dependency on meaning.  Without this distinction nihilism consumes itself and ceases to be.

I have no idea what you are attempting to convey here. So, how about connecting the dots between your point above and
the morality of abortion.

Then the part where things like solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the matrix etc., intertwined in The Gap and Rummy's Rule going back to an explanation for the existence of existence itself...? 

Abortion would minimize as a moral issue if people minimized sexual appetite by trying to stop exploiting it for pleasure as a means to kill the pain inside. Abortion largely occurs because people fail to take responsibility for there sexuality. Now is this all the case? No. Is it a large facet of the problem? Yes.

How does it relate to nihilism? Because people try to kill the pain by observing meaninglessness and the absence of meaning destroys the responsibility to cultivate a sense of balance in how life is pursued and then the pain magnifies.

That is a short answer.

[iambiguous]

I will let you choose the context...one of the infinite ones that exist.  But if you choose one of the infinite possible one's how would you make the distinction of the choice being your from a random occurence in your mind?  The randomness of even choosing the context, if such a thing could be called choice, would make any argument about the distinctions within nihilism meaningless.

The moral conflagration I tend to focus on here is abortion. 

Why:

1] it literally revolves around life and death
2] it is a moral conflict that almost everyone is familiar with
3] it is the issue that [for me] deconstructed objective morality

As for what is meaningful, we don't even know for certain if what we do find meaningful we are in fact able to freely opt not to. It's just that -- click --  when doctors are discussing abortion as a medical procedure, "failures to communicate" are at a minimum. Why? Because human biology is what it is. 

Sex ---> Pregnancy ---> Abortion.
Sex ---> Pregnancy ---> Birth.

Whereas in regard to the morality of abortion what is the equivalent of this? In fact, failures to communicate here are veritably bursting at the seams. And have been going back to the birth of philosophy itself. 

We know of nihilism because of its distinction from meaning, thus for nihilism to be meaning must not only occur but be ever present for any contributions to nihilistic philosophy to continue.

Nihilism requires contrast thus a dependency on meaning.  Without this distinction nihilism consumes itself and ceases to be.

I have no idea what you are attempting to convey here. So, how about connecting the dots between your point above and
the morality of abortion.

Then the part where things like solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the matrix etc., intertwined in The Gap and Rummy's Rule going back to an explanation for the existence of existence itself...? 

Abortion would minimize as a moral issue if people minimized sexual appetite by trying to stop exploiting it for pleasure as a means to kill the pain inside.  Abortion largely occurs because people fail to take responsibility for there sexuality.  Now is this all the case?  No.  Is it a large facet of the problem?  Yes.

How does it relate to nihilism?  Because people try to kill the pain by observing meaninglessness and the absence of meaning destroys the responsibility to cultivate a sense of balance in how life is pursued and then the pain magnifies.

That is a short answer.

Again, this might seem entirely reasonable and relevant to you, but I fail to grasp what it has to do with moral nihilism and abortion as I understand the relationship in a No God world. 

For me, there are objective facts applicable to everyone in discussing abortion as a medical procedure. Or the actual empirical, circumstantial facts pertaining to a particular unwanted pregnancy. Don't need God here. But without Him how is it possible to reconcile [philosophically or otherwise] the many, many conflicting moral assessments...or political/legal assessments...that have sustained this moral conflagration for centuries now. 

[Eodnhoj7]

The moral conflagration I tend to focus on here is abortion. 

Why:

1] it literally revolves around life and death
2] it is a moral conflict that almost everyone is familiar with
3] it is the issue that [for me] deconstructed objective morality

As for what is meaningful, we don't even know for certain if what we do find meaningful we are in fact able to freely opt not to. It's just that -- click --  when doctors are discussing abortion as a medical procedure, "failures to communicate" are at a minimum. Why? Because human biology is what it is. 

Sex ---> Pregnancy ---> Abortion.
Sex ---> Pregnancy ---> Birth.

Whereas in regard to the morality of abortion what is the equivalent of this? In fact, failures to communicate here are veritably bursting at the seams. And have been going back to the birth of philosophy itself. 



I have no idea what you are attempting to convey here. So, how about connecting the dots between your point above and
the morality of abortion.

Then the part where things like solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the matrix etc., intertwined in The Gap and Rummy's Rule going back to an explanation for the existence of existence itself...? 

Abortion would minimize as a moral issue if people minimized sexual appetite by trying to stop exploiting it for pleasure as a means to kill the pain inside.  Abortion largely occurs because people fail to take responsibility for there sexuality.  Now is this all the case?  No.  Is it a large facet of the problem?  Yes.

How does it relate to nihilism?  Because people try to kill the pain by observing meaninglessness and the absence of meaning destroys the responsibility to cultivate a sense of balance in how life is pursued and then the pain magnifies.

That is a short answer.

Again, this might seem entirely reasonable and relevant to you, but I fail to grasp what it has to do with moral nihilism and abortion as I understand the relationship in a No God world. 

For me, there are objective facts applicable to everyone in discussing abortion as a medical procedure. Or the actual empirical, circumstantial facts pertaining to a particular unwanted pregnancy. Don't need God here. But without Him how is it possible to reconcile [philosophically or otherwise] the many, many conflicting moral assessments...or political/legal assessments...that have sustained this moral conflagration for centuries now. 

Your words are foolish, your god is the abyss of the psyche...quite a powerful god. Nihilism is the deification of the abyss.

[iambiguous]

Nihilism

‘I Am A God’: On Becoming More Than Human
David Birch compares the attitudes of Friedrich Nietzsche and Kanye West.

On his 2013 album Yeezus, the Chicago rapper Kanye West highlighted something that the world had failed to notice, namely, that he is a god. He had been called many things in his life – including a jackass by Barack Obama...but never this.

Ye, God?! On the other hand, how on Earth does one go about connecting the dots between Ye and Nietzsche?

Naturally, West’s deific pretensions incurred accusations of narcissism and blasphemy. The offending song was unambiguously titled ‘I Am a God’, and its message was clear: I, Kanye West, am more than human.

Let's run that by...Taylor Swift? Or, sure, it could always just be one more ridiculous example of all the pop culture bullshit that swirls around any number of "stars".

Think Donald Trump, Billy Bush and Access Hollywood?

To witless:

West later explained that the song was born out of frustration. Desperate to become a success in the fashion industry, yet feeling rebuffed by the labels he wanted to work with, he was tipped over the edge at Paris Fashion Week when he was pointedly asked not to attend a series of events: “So the next day I went to the studio with Daft Punk and I wrote ‘I Am a God’, ‘cause it’s like, yo, nobody can tell me where I can and can’t go. Man, I’m the number one living and breathing rock star.” Unsurprisingly, the god who emerges from the song’s lyrics seems closer to a diva than a divinity:

“I am a god

Hurry up with my damn massage

Hurry up with my damn ménage

Get the Porsche out the damn garage”

Ye, the Ubermensch?

Now, from my frame of mind, nihilism revolves largely around the assumption that assessments of this sort are beyond the reach of philosophers. At least in regard to pinning down the optimal reaction to it. Same with the fashion industrial complex Ye is a part of. To get all bent out of shape mentally and emotionally over the clothes we wear -- the devil wears prada mentality -- is entirely alien to me. Though for others it's the center of the universe.

It's just another manifestation of dasein, in my view. And will remain that way until one or another argument from scientists, philosophers and/or theologians really is able to establish the most reasonable reaction to things of this sort.