Philosophy Now Forum

Lectures from Ken Gemes. Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London.

Nihilism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0y5-hB0WYs

Truth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWBIFavfCtM

Good waste of time, neither is relevant in modern times, only a lecture in historical garbage!

HexHammer wrote:Good waste of time, neither is relevant in modern times, only a lecture in historical garbage!

You're ugly.

It's more relevant now than ever before since every historical absolute or belief is in the process of being reexamined. Only natural when considering events during the last 200 years. Nietzsche was virtually the first to understand truth as existing solely within our All too Human perspectives.

MusicalSpirit wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Good waste of time, neither is relevant in modern times, only a lecture in historical garbage!

You're ugly.

And you are a retard!

Dubious wrote:It's more relevant now than ever before since every historical absolute or belief is in the process of being reexamined. Only natural when considering events during the last 200 years. Nietzsche was virtually the first to understand truth as existing solely within our All too Human perspectives.

Schopenhauer, I would say.

HexHammer wrote:Good waste of time, neither is relevant in modern times, only a lecture in historical garbage!

So, who is relevant to you, Hex? Can you name names, or is it a secret? What exactly is your core philosophy? I've stated mine when I first got here, and often repeat it. How about you. Perhaps I'll start a thread where people can state succinctly that.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=16615

Dalek Prime wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Good waste of time, neither is relevant in modern times, only a lecture in historical garbage!

So, who is relevant to you, Hex? Can you name names, or is it a secret? What exactly is your core philosophy? I've stated mine when I first got here, and often repeat it. How about you. Perhaps I'll start a thread where people can state succinctly that.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=16615

Never read much of any philospher, but 1 of my core principles is asking "WHY!?!?" then find a scientific answer, too many only asks "why" but never search for the answer, but rely on glaringly ignorant people to give them a retarded answer.

It's actually my parents who gave me the guiding principles for my philosophy, never let other pressure you to do anything, only listen to reason, etc.

HexHammer wrote:]Never read much of any philospher, .

This much is obvious. Being ignorant is one thing, but wearing your ignorance like a badge of honour just makes you look stupid.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

HexHammer wrote:]Never read much of any philospher, .

This much is obvious. Being ignorant is one thing, but wearing your ignorance like a badge of honour just makes you look stupid.

Quite the contrary, I don't rely on outdated nonsense, you can't tell the difference, because you are glaringly ignorant and speaks straight out of your ignorant ass!

HexHammer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

HexHammer wrote:]Never read much of any philospher, .

This much is obvious. Being ignorant is one thing, but wearing your ignorance like a badge of honour just makes you look stupid.

Quite the contrary, I don't rely on outdated nonsense, you can't tell the difference, because you are glaringly ignorant and speaks straight out of your ignorant ass!

As you are completely ignorant of philosophy you are not in a position to judge if it is either out of date or nonsense. Until you learn to read you will remain stupid.

Without having to delve into Nietzshe's or other's interpretions on what nihilism is or is not, maybe it might be more constructive here simply to discuss what it means to us here and now. I haven't read anything directly of Nietzshe (or that I could remember) but get the gist of his philosophical take. I noticed that from the beginning of the first link that I related to Nietzshe's explanation given by this philosopher on how we lose interest in what we value once it is achieved. I didn't hear this argument before but is one that I've derived myself independently and have actually used in a different way.
But I didn't argue it in the context of anything about Nihilism that I recall.

The example of one of this philosopher's reading on Nietzshe regarded how values are equivalent to a goal that we seek due to favoring something (what one 'wills' or desires). He said that once we achieve it, the goal is satisfied and so we no longer have it. I used this explanation before many places but think that I first used it to defend the idea that people require a motive to become intelligent or we would all default to preferring ignorance. If I recall, this was what I was trying to relate to other skeptics such as myself when we question others for their apparent 'stupidity'. I used the dumb-blonde stereotype as a reference and used some examples of media stars who seem clueless and anti-intellectual. I also related it to the 'positive thinking' movements that often come from people who interpret all of us to be able to get what we want simply for wanting it hard enough, which I find is too absurd to take literally. Often these people themselves are merely fortunate to such a degree to have been favored almost regardless of what they do and so interpret their own 'successes' as a result of their ease to eventually get what they want for wanting it.

So I began arguing that the 'dumb-blonde' stereotype, for instance, has some partial truth to it and referenced it using an American Idol winner, Kellie Pickler. For a sample of her, see Is 'Idol' Kellie Pickler Deviously Ditzy of Just Plain Dumb?. I pointed out how regardless of her apparent 'dumbness', we admire her for it in the same light since she's so cute and full of humor. And while this may seem 'dumb', it is actually still 'wise' for such people NOT to acquire intelligence unless they NEED it.

This is because while we value intelligence, the actual nature of humans, as with any animal, is to approach one's goals with the simplest and direct approach where possible, if only for efficiency alone. Intelligence, I argued, is actually a byproduct of those who run into real barriers in life and require some means to overcome it. As such, we only require intellectual reflection when our reality prevents us from getting what we really want. For example, if you are craving something, you only 'crave' it until you achieve it. But once you receive it, this satisfaction is no longer existing and so goes away. [This is the Nietzshe's argument here too.] What I was pointing out is that for those who easily get what they want, they have no further drive to bother to seek it and so lack a need to think or intellectualize things regarding what you can already get regardless. Thus what appears as 'anti-intellectual' is actually just something we ALL prefer by default and it is reasonable NOT to become more intellectual unless forced to by necessity.

How does this relate to Nihilism though? As a nihilist myself, I regard things like desires or wants simply a form of VALUE. Values are merely arbitrary to nature other than as conscious motivators to seek our environment based on our contemporary things we favor and are thus fleeting too. As such, I think that Nietzshe may have been using this to help recognize that even anything of VALUE is equally nothing that nature directly 'favors' but is a localized reflection of each independent person's personal (and fleeting) drives.

I agree with this and am therefore also against even some of us atheists who attempt to argue for some moral imperative based on biology. Those like Michael Shermer defends the idea that even without religion, we are moral, for instance, and is evidenced in certain factors relating to our biological aptitudes as social creatures. While I'm not in disagreement with the intent to defeat the religious person who may think that God is required to command what is 'good' and moral, I don't think it is necessary to try to interpret nature as commanding particular values either.

I know that this is only one aspect of the topic on Nihilism, but hope that this might help relate to us better here as a means to discuss rather than trying to interpret precisely Nietzshe's words.

Does anybody relate to this better than trying to deal with past philosophers' discussions?

So Hex, why do you feel competent to trash philosophers you've never even read? You have no idea the knowledge you are missing out on. And no offence, but it may improve your written skills.

Dalek Prime wrote:So Hex, why do you feel competent to trash philosophers you've never even read? You have no idea the knowledge you are missing out on. And no offence, but it may improve your written skills.

I don't think he is intentionally 'trashing' for no reason. This is why I re-introduced it in a modern context. In order to understand some philosophers requires such intense background effort to follow contextually. So you need to speak in modern terms unless you are desiring to critique the nature of literature here and not the actual philosophy of Nihilism.

Scott Mayers wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:So Hex, why do you feel competent to trash philosophers you've never even read? You have no idea the knowledge you are missing out on. And no offence, but it may improve your written skills.

I don't think he is intentionally 'trashing' for no reason. This is why I re-introduced it in a modern context. In order to understand some philosophers requires such intense background effort to follow contextually. So you need to speak in modern terms unless you are desiring to critique the nature of literature here and not the actual philosophy of Nihilism.

Okay, but he still says he reads zero philosophy, and that can't be a good thing. I personally hate when people trash something without reading it. Unless it's 'Mein Kampf'. Then feel free to lol.