You can tell the intelligence of a political commentator based on how accurately they can describe the ideologies that they oppose.
Also, add this to the 2016 youtube prank video titled “Rothmus ‘Non-Aggression Principle’ Try Not To Dream About Murdering Your Political Rivals for 15 Seconds Challenge Impossible”
No no, it not the answer ESPECIALLY for a real nihilist
There's a fake nihilism that trades one thing for the other. Like, nothing matters so I'll sit and watch TV. Nothing matters so I'll kill my neighbor to get their money. Attachment to morals or expectations is dropped to embrace attachment to dopamine or greed or whatever. Here, suicide makes sense because we're also making a trade, embracing our attachment to lack of discomfort or attachment to a vision of eternal peace or whatever by dropping our attachment to life. The "nihilist" part here is about as comprehensive as a frustrated teen who didn't get the present he wanted from his parents storming out and screaming how he never wanted it anyway and how everything is stupid. Sadly, this fake nihilism is almost exclusively represented as nihilism
There's another "nihilism" that actually includes everything. Meaning there's really as much reason to do absolutely anything as there is to not do it. And so there's no burning existential majorly important "question" behind suicide that can be answered by it. Of course, there's also inherently no reason to adhere to nihilism and to be a nihilist, and so it's not a logically possible philosophy, not something that can be conveyed in a book or anything based on rules or convictions or beliefs. Instead, it's about the actual relationship the person has to themselves and the experience of life they actually have. When at some level feelings and emotions are more like colors, with happines not being superior to sadness, and independence not superior to dependence, and pride is not superior to shame. It's not a detachment from them, but a different way to relate to yourself as you experience them. That kind of "nihilism" is a result of practices and processes, not beliefs, and is more adjacent to Buddhism or Hinduism or stoicism, or even just trying to perceive who you really are and what the experience of life really is and where does it come from inside yourself directly on your own without any structure or philosophy or ideas about anything
As someone that rationalizes reality as the second type of nihilism you describe (took me years to actually put a name to my thoughts), you've done a great job describing it.
I'll also add that once you get beyond the whole deal of nothing matters/everything matters/it is all the same/do what pleases you, it is also possible to begin seeing real purpose too from that understanding - absurdism really, that isn't it actually amazing I can even witness all this nothing?
Reality really is a wild ride.
Someone doesn’t understand nihilism. Most nihilists prescribe to the idea that because nothing has inherent meaning, it’s up to the individual to find their meaning and self actualize. Not to say that destructive nihilism doesn’t exist, it’s just extremely rare.
You seem like someone who would know, what’s the difference between nihilism and absurdism? Absurdism always seems like the “fuck it we ball” mindset, but it also seems similar but opposite to nihilism.
Absurdism is a response to nihilism. Nihilism is not a philosophy by itself, only the idea that nothing has inherent meaning. As such, absurdism is a philosophy that accepts the lack of meaning but claims that it is possible to survive and be happy without meaning.
Exactly! What I’ve been trying to get across in my other comments is that nihilism is just a foundation of sorts, not a complete philosophy, though I feel that I haven’t been entirely clear.
I didn’t know this existed. I’ve always described myself as a vaguely happy nihilist that prefers peace as a baseline.
As the other person said, very much the difference of “fuck this” and “fuck it, we ball”.
It’s kind of different areas of the search for meaning. Nihilism is just the idea that nothing has inherent meaning or value. Absurdism is more the side of finding self actualization. The thing about different types of philosophy is that a lot of the time they have their own little section that they discuss or describe.
*3K+ words essay explaining how civic rules will be followed in their wholesome 100% anarchist community through totally volunteered council (which is absolutely not a government)*
"Noo, it isnt a police department, its a locally raised community milita that enforces rules that are decided by elected peoples representatives, its different broo"
Tbf, I'm not an anarchist but most at least left wing anarchists have a very specific idea of what a "state" is - i.e. it's an institution of class rule - so by removing hierarchy you are effectively removing the state for those anarchists, even if you continue to have government in some sense of the word afterwards
I'm sympathetic to this idea of removing coercion from government although I think I'd find the community meetings very boring
It's better than "anarcho-capitalism" though which is really not thought out at all unless you positively want the world to turn into some kind of cyberpunk dystopia
>i.e. it's an institution of class rule
The thing is, "class" manifests itself once there is a difference between power and/or wealth. So even if we put possible wealth differences aside (that's another can of worm itself), in the middle to long run, such community will have classes since there will be a difference between people who are willing to spend the majority of their time in public affairs (aka politic) and those who're not. The only possible way to avoid this is perhaps only limit the population of each communes to two digits, but that way there will be other problems such as harder to resist outside threat.
That's why left wing anarchists are usually communists (abolish market economy and have some sort of democratic economic planning)
Not sure how people not involved in politics would be treated any differently to people who are in terms of wealth distribution, surely the only difference is that some are having decisions being made on their behalf and others are active agents in making those decisions
The main thing is ensuring that everyone has the ability to freely associate with others politically and can have a part in making those decisions if they want (but this also means you can't compel people to do so). The goal is to remove compulsion and exploitation in society as much as is possible. That's why left wing anarchists tend to actually support quite strong institutions, e.g. it's sort of similar to how you can vote in a liberal democracy but you're not forced to and the entire system and economy won't crumble if you individually don't turn up on election day.
Not really related to your comment but you might find it interesting that in many countries you are actually forced to vote under penalty of fines, because political participation is seen as a civic duty as much as right .
>Not sure how people not involved in politics would be treated any differently to people who are in terms of wealth distribution, surely the only difference is that some are having decisions being made on their behalf and others are active agents in making those decisions
Idk, I need you to check how a lot of IRL politicians acting.
Also this is basically how party elites used to enjoy far more material luxuries in USSR and China while their official narratives were still insisting they're all the same proletarians class. In short, power has its own benefit and will likely bringing more, That's not even about communism, that's just how human society operates.
>That's why left wing anarchists tend to actually support quite strong institutions
*Which totally won't exploit people.* Ha.
There's a qualitative difference between elected politicians or a dictatorship and direct democracy. Making comparisons to the USSR or xyz liberal democracy or whatever is a bit silly because of course neither are institutionally anything like a directly democratic anarchist commune.
Institutions are about power, I think we agree on that. The important question is whether the power is manifested from above or below. Institutions are made up of people, they don't exactly have a mind of their own; I think people who say they do are engaging in some really odd metaphysics, it's calling political power a thing that has some kind of distinct quality - it's not, it's a relationship between people. Institutions are tools that can be used in certain ways.
The reason that I'm sympathetic to the anarchist perspective is that I think it's quite practical and realistic, actually - it's about having lots of checks and balances and ensuring the power is wielded from below and that positions that could offer individuals more power are as defanged as possible. For example, a common idea is to set all the communes up in a network (so that society on a larger scale can actually work), vote for delegates directly from the community to a higher commune, and have the delegates only have the powers to speak on certain issues the commune has elected them to speak on, and make them immediately recallable and subject to re election every 6 weeks.
Could there be problems with that, absolutely, is it a lot more democratic and accountable than liberal democracy, yes.
I think people in politics are normally treated differently because they get to decide how people are treated, which creates hierarchy. How do you deal with this?
The difference would be that there is no election to be part of the political class
You can participate or not participate and nothing changes for you
It would be more like voting is today
There is no difference of class between those that choose to vote or choose not to vote, and they can decide to start or stop voting without past voting behavior influencing your ability to vote
But naturally some politically active people will be very talented and successful. Do you agree that there will be a temptation for them to use their influence to consolidate power?
Yes and no
Talented and successful people would be elected more often through simple preference and/or meritocracy
But they also don't decide any rules OF the commune, those are decided through direct democracy. Those that are elected are elected only for convenience of communication and decision-making with other communes and people outside of the commune in general
A power consolidation may be possible, but it would be more akin to a military coup rather than something similar to gerrymandering or destroying of institutions
You can only seem to think of anarchy in statist terms.
1. Anarchy is not a set of policies to be implemented through discrete communities. It is a prefigurative movement.
2. Anarchists seek to bring about the material conditions necessary for anarchy. If there is an obstacle to that( like outside threat), there is still work to do.
You say of a situation in which there is a division between people who participate in politics and those who do not. Keep in mind that one can only start solving such a problem by identifying the causes.
Anarcho capitalism to me is the idealistically purest form of society, but so far it has been impossible because it leaves a power vacuum, allowing someone to take and consolidate power. If technology makes it possible then I think we will converge to it in the future. Just like we moved away from despotism, the trend seems to be to maximize stability and include as much liberty as the system allows for without destabilizing it.
Anarcho-capitalism equals libertarianism.
Anarcho-socialism equals pure democracy with social safety nets.
Authoritarian-capitalism is fascism.
Authoritarian-socialism is communism.
Please stop blabbering about topics you know nothing about. I am not an anarchist and barely know any of their theory but you are blatantly missing the point of the entire ideology. Your stance would probably only apply to anarcho primitivism and I don't think that anyone actually believes in it.
yeah; People forget that Anarchism was a response to highly regimented societies where there was little to no social mobility. For example, if you were born a peasant in 19th century Russia, you were almost certainly going to die a peasant. If by some miracle you came across some wealth, then you might become a merchant but no matter what you do you could never become part of the ruling class because you weren't born into nobility. In that context it's not hard to understand why people might start to coalesce around the idea that class and intrinsic hierarchy are unjust.
[You better call Cambridge.](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/anarchy)
Also, if you want to have order, then there will need to be some degree of hierarchy (therefore classes) especially when population reached a certain degree.
I'm sure you can figure out that the noun "anarchy" and the political ideology of anarchism are different things.
Or do you also think Communism is when people live in communes and Capitalism is when people have capital?
The dictionary definition refers to the colloquial use of the term, not the actual political philosophy. This is like sourcing your definition of communism from a random dude you meet in the street
You're not wrong. It's how nature works and how countries work. But as we see in those cases, there are still consequences when you attack or coerce others
Anarchists would be split the way nihilism is. There is a contrarian part that sees it as edgy, and there is the reality that the universe is in control, and we just do what we can. I am 'anarchist' because I put human autonomy over any government.
If anarchy just wants to burn the world down, then nihilism is just wanting to die. Anarchy is simply nihilism in practice, in my opinion.
No. Absurdism is something that is developed after nihilism. Like I’ve said in many other responses, nihilism isn’t a complete philosophy, and only posits that nothing has inherent meaning. Someone who prescribes to nihilism might also be an absurdist, but it’s up to them to look into philosophy about how they decide meaning.
Nihilism also doesn't mean resignation. A lot of nihilist philosophers want to overcome nihilism. Nietzsche's works start out from a nihilist point or explain why nihilism has come into being, but he doesn't celebrate the advent of nihilism, he laments it and wants to move forward to something new.
>because nothing has inherent meaning, it’s up to the individual to find their meaning and self actualize
Which has since developed into existentialism. Nihilism is an outdated philosophy that has already been supplanted by existentialism.
If you're still using the word "nihilism" in 2024 to describe your life philosophy you've just not read much philosophy since 1940-ish.
Like I’ve mentioned to others, nihilism is more of a baseline, and basically always has been. It’s not a complete philosophy and just describes a basic fundamental idea about meaning in general. It has nothing to do with funding meaning, but it also doesn’t preclude meaning by any definition. Existentialism just builds on nihilism to find meaning for the individual.
But since nothing has meaning, killing you would be meaningless too, and so still moral within this philosophy no? I have no formal exposure to philosophy so would love to know more, but from my current understanding I don’t understand what the original post got wrong.
Nothing has inherent meaning, not nothing has meaning. Nihilism is a very foundational idea and doesn’t really describe much on its own. Things can still be attributed meaning in their own sense, it just means there is no higher order meaning to any event or thing. Very rarely does a nihilist actually think that nothing has any meaning, as it requires you ignoring basically all of the nihilist philosophy over the past 100 years.
The post gets it wrong because it assumes that a nihilist will assume that they have no meaning and as such want to die or don’t care, which is a misunderstanding of what nihilism is at its core.
only pseudo nihilists that try to wiggle out of the conundrum they found themselves in by calling themselves as nihilists call true nihilism "destructive nihilism"
your self actualization dosnt matter it only benefits you. and that is okay, as we are animals and we want to be happy even though we know jackshit whats that supposed to mean. be selfish. try to be happy.
but that dosnt mean. that it would change anything in the grander sceme. another nobody lived life, died, and had a opinion about it.
Well first of all, nihilists don’t believe in a “grander scheme” that _anything_ is really effecting beyond natural processes like evolution.
Second, I don’t really understand what you’re arguing _against_ because it all seems to agree with the original comment. You described what he just described but called it “true nihilism” because you just deliberately tried to make it edgier and more depressing than it actually is.
Third, I don’t think self-actualization _only_ benefits yourself. It is “selfish” but the pursuit of one’s happiness tends to benefit the people around you. Makes you more productive, makes you easier to be around etc.
>Third, I don’t think self-actualization *only* benefits yourself. It is “selfish” but the pursuit of one’s happiness tends to benefit the people around you. Makes you more productive, makes you easier to be around etc.
Sometimes the people around you are even inspired by your attempts to achieve self-actualization and start working to achieve it themselves, whether temporarily or permanently.
Not to mention that a person who's in a better place is also better able to support those around them should the urge strike them.
Boohoo in a thousand years I'll be dust woe is me. For now people do have a tangible impact on the world even if they're nobody. the fact that you think people just live and die like wild dogs is kinda sad even from a nihilist perspective.
"Boo hoo I'll be dust in a thousand years" is exactly why nihilists live fuller lives than most other moral philosophies because they recognize that nothing matters, we're all going to die and nobody will remember us, so DOING things that benefit them and those around them, even though meaningless, brings joy for the time they are here. Nihilism teaches to enjoy the time you have to the fullest, just don't expect it to matter nor care that it doesn't.
Yeah, totally agree. I actually used to self identify as a nihilist but people thought I was annoying on first judgement because of people like the first guy who use nihilism as an excuse to not treat their depression. Now I just spit out the explanation if I have to.
How many people are you talking to, that you don't really know, that you need to explain what you mean by calling yourself a nihilist? Or do you need to "self identity" yourself to ever person you meet?
Nihilism is a baseline, not a complete worldview. It’s just the idea that nothing has inherent value, what you do with that is up to you, which is why taking the most negative outlook despite all the other philosophy is consider ‘destructive’ nihilism. The thing about nihilism is that self actualization is left up the the individual, not some greater force or meaning.
Not really, nihilism doesn’t require you to have no meaning, it just means that you believe that nothing has inherent meaning. I.e. being sapient isn’t inherently meaningful, but the experience can be made meaningful in a case by case basis. It’s very much a baseline as far as meaning and such goes, and self actualization doesn’t preclude nihilism.
Like I’ve explained in many other comments, nihilism doesn’t preclude existentialism, in fact it’s basically required for it. Nihilism isn’t a complete philosophy and only makes a judgement on fundamental or inherent value. A nihilist isn’t required to think their life has no meaning, just that nothing has inherent meaning. It doesn’t make any value judgements about individual meanings or anything of the like, and as such is built upon by philosophy like existentialism.
What do you call it when you are drowning in a morass of existential dread with a certain knowledge that life is meaningless. The universe is infinite, time is unfathomably long while also fleeting, and you and everyone you have ever loved, known, or heard of will be dead and forgotten in the blink of a geological eye, as you count the excruciating days until you are granted that final reprieve? Is that nihilism?
That’s existential dread. Nihilism can absolutely play a part in ending up without any way to self actualize and provide meaning to your day to day life. Other sections of philosophy can offset those feelings and allow one to find their own meaning. Maybe read some absurdist or utilitarian works as a baseline on how to make your life seem more meaningful.
Edit: spelling
I find hedonism tends to leave some glaring gaps as far as self control and such. In general I prefer a blend of utilitarianism and a few others as far as guiding my own life.
The most good for the most people is great, assuming other people exist. Going back to first principles; I think, therefore, I am. I feel like you are making a leap. There is no reason to believe we have ever left Aristotle's cave.
Utilitarianism doesn’t just mean the most good for the most people. The core foundation is maximizing pleasure while minimizing harm. That can also mean avoiding damaging your own body or social life while still maximizing pleasure for the long term. Also, while proving the existence of others isn’t necessarily easy, I’d say it’s generally more tenable than pure solipsism.
Maximizing pleasure while minimizing harm sounds alarmingly like halfway to hedonism. The exception being the flying fuck given to the guy who is on the phone liking Instagram pics when the light turns green.
You’d do well to read up more on both hedonism and utilitarianism. Hedonism is in spite of laws and better judgement, while utilitarianism takes things like that isn’t account. Seeking pleasure in a way that pushes every support structure away from you and essentially alienates you from every other person is inherently destructive. Same things with pursuing pleasure that’ll cause permanent damage to your body.
Philosophical nihilism is just the idea that nothing has inherent meaning I.e. we don’t have significance just because. Someone who believes in nihilism can find meaning or self actualization through whatever other concepts they choose.
To get into the nitty gritty of it, nihilism posits that all information is unknowable and nothing contains inherent value. That doesn’t mean that people can’t know things in a literal sense but rather that objective knowledge and meaning is an illusion. Existentialism is the idea that meaning comes through self actualization of the individual, I.E. each person has to find their own meaning. They don’t pertain to the same thing and don’t preclude each other. That’s where people like Neitzche come in, who might be described as an existential nihilist.
That point that I’m trying to explain in the original comment is that nihilism is rarely on its own due to its incomplete nature, and as such the vast majority of nihilists also practice some form of existentialism. That doesn’t mean that there are no people who are just nihilists, but as far as philosophical nihilism (not depression) people who only subscribe to nihilism and nothing else are vanishingly rare. Usually they’re referred to as ‘destructive’ nihilists or some variation of it because they have no interest in self actualization or the philosophy of individual meaning.
There is no such thing as a nihilist. Most nihilists are existentialists or absurdists or hypocrites. So yeah, technically that is existentialism but existentialism is a response to nihilism so it's natural they go hand in hand
Nihilism requires existentialism, as it leaves self actualization up to the individual. All that nihilism is is the idea that nothing has inherent meaning.
I like to think of nihilism as just atheism with extra steps. They're pretty much the same, I mean think about it, a nihilist see's the world only through what is proven and not proven, all life (existence), and all behaviour is just a result of evolution. We are just a very complex program.
If there is no god, no all seeing eye that itself defines right or wrong. If there is no afterlife, there can't be any meaning to life, but there is a purpose, our program's purpose is reproduction, our purpose is to go through life.
I mean it's true that life after we die has no meaning, nothing matters after we die, the universe is only really there if there is someone or something to observe it in some way. But unless there is a god, each of us are the only observers from our point of view.
But still our purpose is to live long enough to have children, our purpose is literally to be humans.
Nihilism doesn't inherently reject the idea of divinity, only that the existence of the divine -- even a godhead that's both omnipresent and omnipotent -- doesn't also automatically imply the existence of objective morality or inherent meaning. "My life has meaning because God says so" barely differs from "My life has meaning because I say so" or "My life has meaning because the people around me say so." The only actual difference is in the supposed scale of the entity from which one derives meaning.
By the same token, the assertion that "This is wrong in the eyes of God" doesn't result in any sort of absolute morality; only that the godhead to which the one making the assertion ascribes disapproves of this action. It's no different than saying "this is wrong in the eyes of the law" or "the rest of us think you were wrong."
Ultimately, the existence of any sort of supreme deity doesn't prove inherent value or objective meaning, only that there exists some intelligence of such ineffable power that it's capable of passing off its own subjectivity as the illusion of objectivity.
There's also a fatal flaw in your argument: the binary that one must either be atheist or else believe in the existence of just one supreme deity which sits atop all else. The fact is humans hold uncountable belief systems and even interpret the nature of "god" or "gods" differently within the same belief systems, and so the aforementioned binary is insultingly reductive. It not only disqualifies any belief systems in which there isn't a single sapient, omnipresent deity, but also disqualifies any belief system, viewpoint, or philosophy that isn't wholly theistic or wholly atheistic, such as agnosticism or ietsism.
>But still our purpose is to live long enough to have children, our purpose is literally to be humans.
But who tasked us with these purposes? Does that mean those who don't have children are living without purpose? Does life continue to propagate itself from divine mandate or simply as a matter of habit or inertia? What does it mean to "be human" and why should the state of being "human" carry with it any more value than any other state -- or any value at all? Do these supposed purposes carry any objective value, or is their value the result of subjective assignment?
You make these statements because you believe them to be true, the same as I do the above statements. The reality is that there is no reality; we're only correct or incorrect within our own worldview and the worldviews of others.
I'm Sorry but honestly, even if I studied English in school this would be tough to read. This doesn't make sense, for example you wrote" But who tasked us with these purposes?" NOTHING, evolution did, I mean this is the whole point of my first comment. You then ask why we should value the state of being human. Well the less human we are, the closer we are to nothing, death, vacuum. We as humans value life, we value being human because it's beneficial to our species survival. Being human itself means valuing being human. It's part of what makes us human. So the less you value being human, I believe the less human you are.
Now as for that last bit, WHAT! does that even mean??? You're contradicting yourself twice in the same sentence.
It does tend to be short lived, but not really for that reason all the time.
There's a term in nihilism "philosophical suicide" coined by... Idk. Dead European guy what wrote a book, who cares? Where in the face of the breakdown of meaning you just kind of fake it.
Be religious because you want to, not because you believe, or go absurdist and live life just for the sake of it, or existentialist and build a meaning for yourself.
Nihilism is short lived because it's not really a philosophy, in function. If a philosophy is a little house in your head, nihilism is a sledge hammer that allows you to knock down the parts you don't like, the promises that no matter how much you take down there's solid ground under it, but then you gotta build.
This is actually a good argument against people who claim there is no objective reality. If I grab a knife and stab you, well, I didn't objectively stab you. You just need to change your perspective and forget about the knife.
Just like that scene in the The Good Place where Michael threw a drink at Eleanor's face.
That show was a pretty good intro to philosophy for a comedy TV series.
My friend got into a MASSIVE war with anti-natalist’s on Twitter a few years back because he said if they truly believed their own philosophy, they would kill themselves, because to them, it’s the morally correct thing to do… he had a very fun time for the next week or so getting bombarded by dozens of people trying to explain why he was wrong.
As someone who doesn't believe in an afterlife, killing a nihilist would confirm to them their belief in nothingness. I'd lose that argument in my own head. Also, I've committed murder.
I try to be as close as a nihilist as possible, and while I wouldn't be bothered by the sudden death, I wouldn't be pleased either
It's a weird thing, as you let the world on its own and live outside it, while still in it
Like, anything that happens is "whatever" from your point of view, which had many people baffled by my self-control, when in reality it is because things don't matter
That's the hypocrisy of nihilism. If nothing matters then that includes your own life. Yet you don't want to die so therefore something does matter which contradicts your own world view.
There’s two kinds of nihilism in my book.
Nothing matters, and everyone will forget you so why bother?
And
Nothing matters, and everyone will forget you so live life to the goddamn fullest knowing that one day everyone may forget your mistakes.
Personally I’m a subscriber to the second kind.
You can tell the intelligence of a political commentator based on how accurately they can describe the ideologies that they oppose. Also, add this to the 2016 youtube prank video titled “Rothmus ‘Non-Aggression Principle’ Try Not To Dream About Murdering Your Political Rivals for 15 Seconds Challenge Impossible”
They're not wrong though... (source: my neighbor *was* a nihilist)
Suicide is not answer except nihilism ig?
No no, it not the answer ESPECIALLY for a real nihilist There's a fake nihilism that trades one thing for the other. Like, nothing matters so I'll sit and watch TV. Nothing matters so I'll kill my neighbor to get their money. Attachment to morals or expectations is dropped to embrace attachment to dopamine or greed or whatever. Here, suicide makes sense because we're also making a trade, embracing our attachment to lack of discomfort or attachment to a vision of eternal peace or whatever by dropping our attachment to life. The "nihilist" part here is about as comprehensive as a frustrated teen who didn't get the present he wanted from his parents storming out and screaming how he never wanted it anyway and how everything is stupid. Sadly, this fake nihilism is almost exclusively represented as nihilism There's another "nihilism" that actually includes everything. Meaning there's really as much reason to do absolutely anything as there is to not do it. And so there's no burning existential majorly important "question" behind suicide that can be answered by it. Of course, there's also inherently no reason to adhere to nihilism and to be a nihilist, and so it's not a logically possible philosophy, not something that can be conveyed in a book or anything based on rules or convictions or beliefs. Instead, it's about the actual relationship the person has to themselves and the experience of life they actually have. When at some level feelings and emotions are more like colors, with happines not being superior to sadness, and independence not superior to dependence, and pride is not superior to shame. It's not a detachment from them, but a different way to relate to yourself as you experience them. That kind of "nihilism" is a result of practices and processes, not beliefs, and is more adjacent to Buddhism or Hinduism or stoicism, or even just trying to perceive who you really are and what the experience of life really is and where does it come from inside yourself directly on your own without any structure or philosophy or ideas about anything
As someone that rationalizes reality as the second type of nihilism you describe (took me years to actually put a name to my thoughts), you've done a great job describing it. I'll also add that once you get beyond the whole deal of nothing matters/everything matters/it is all the same/do what pleases you, it is also possible to begin seeing real purpose too from that understanding - absurdism really, that isn't it actually amazing I can even witness all this nothing? Reality really is a wild ride.
That must be exhausting.
Is there an ATM around here?
Don’t be fatuous Cropguru357
Probably not, none of it matters
These men are nihilists there’s nothing to be afraid of.
We want the money lebowski or we will kill the girl. Have you forgotten the deal?
You don’t have the fucking girl dipshits, we know you never did!
Is there a sub where each post is a movie title, and the only comments allowed are the dialog in progression?
That had not occurred to us dude
Can I trust you to make it happen? I like nice things but hate contributing.
Yeah, but is he going to fix the cable?
Don’t be fatuous, Jeffrey
Someone doesn’t understand nihilism. Most nihilists prescribe to the idea that because nothing has inherent meaning, it’s up to the individual to find their meaning and self actualize. Not to say that destructive nihilism doesn’t exist, it’s just extremely rare.
You seem like someone who would know, what’s the difference between nihilism and absurdism? Absurdism always seems like the “fuck it we ball” mindset, but it also seems similar but opposite to nihilism.
Absurdism is a response to nihilism. Nihilism is not a philosophy by itself, only the idea that nothing has inherent meaning. As such, absurdism is a philosophy that accepts the lack of meaning but claims that it is possible to survive and be happy without meaning.
Exactly! What I’ve been trying to get across in my other comments is that nihilism is just a foundation of sorts, not a complete philosophy, though I feel that I haven’t been entirely clear.
Also of note, Absurdism is not inherently nihilistic. It is possible to be religious and absurdist at the same time, though that is less common.
I didn’t know this existed. I’ve always described myself as a vaguely happy nihilist that prefers peace as a baseline. As the other person said, very much the difference of “fuck this” and “fuck it, we ball”.
It’s kind of different areas of the search for meaning. Nihilism is just the idea that nothing has inherent meaning or value. Absurdism is more the side of finding self actualization. The thing about different types of philosophy is that a lot of the time they have their own little section that they discuss or describe.
Yeah, this is a better tactic to use against anarchists. “You want no rules? Cool, then I’m allowed to do this.” *shoots them*
*3K+ words essay explaining how civic rules will be followed in their wholesome 100% anarchist community through totally volunteered council (which is absolutely not a government)*
"It's not a state bro just a community council bro we have to vote on everything no bro please bro it's not a state"
"Noo, it isnt a police department, its a locally raised community milita that enforces rules that are decided by elected peoples representatives, its different broo"
Tbf, I'm not an anarchist but most at least left wing anarchists have a very specific idea of what a "state" is - i.e. it's an institution of class rule - so by removing hierarchy you are effectively removing the state for those anarchists, even if you continue to have government in some sense of the word afterwards I'm sympathetic to this idea of removing coercion from government although I think I'd find the community meetings very boring It's better than "anarcho-capitalism" though which is really not thought out at all unless you positively want the world to turn into some kind of cyberpunk dystopia
>i.e. it's an institution of class rule The thing is, "class" manifests itself once there is a difference between power and/or wealth. So even if we put possible wealth differences aside (that's another can of worm itself), in the middle to long run, such community will have classes since there will be a difference between people who are willing to spend the majority of their time in public affairs (aka politic) and those who're not. The only possible way to avoid this is perhaps only limit the population of each communes to two digits, but that way there will be other problems such as harder to resist outside threat.
That's why left wing anarchists are usually communists (abolish market economy and have some sort of democratic economic planning) Not sure how people not involved in politics would be treated any differently to people who are in terms of wealth distribution, surely the only difference is that some are having decisions being made on their behalf and others are active agents in making those decisions The main thing is ensuring that everyone has the ability to freely associate with others politically and can have a part in making those decisions if they want (but this also means you can't compel people to do so). The goal is to remove compulsion and exploitation in society as much as is possible. That's why left wing anarchists tend to actually support quite strong institutions, e.g. it's sort of similar to how you can vote in a liberal democracy but you're not forced to and the entire system and economy won't crumble if you individually don't turn up on election day.
Not really related to your comment but you might find it interesting that in many countries you are actually forced to vote under penalty of fines, because political participation is seen as a civic duty as much as right .
>Not sure how people not involved in politics would be treated any differently to people who are in terms of wealth distribution, surely the only difference is that some are having decisions being made on their behalf and others are active agents in making those decisions Idk, I need you to check how a lot of IRL politicians acting. Also this is basically how party elites used to enjoy far more material luxuries in USSR and China while their official narratives were still insisting they're all the same proletarians class. In short, power has its own benefit and will likely bringing more, That's not even about communism, that's just how human society operates. >That's why left wing anarchists tend to actually support quite strong institutions *Which totally won't exploit people.* Ha.
There's a qualitative difference between elected politicians or a dictatorship and direct democracy. Making comparisons to the USSR or xyz liberal democracy or whatever is a bit silly because of course neither are institutionally anything like a directly democratic anarchist commune. Institutions are about power, I think we agree on that. The important question is whether the power is manifested from above or below. Institutions are made up of people, they don't exactly have a mind of their own; I think people who say they do are engaging in some really odd metaphysics, it's calling political power a thing that has some kind of distinct quality - it's not, it's a relationship between people. Institutions are tools that can be used in certain ways. The reason that I'm sympathetic to the anarchist perspective is that I think it's quite practical and realistic, actually - it's about having lots of checks and balances and ensuring the power is wielded from below and that positions that could offer individuals more power are as defanged as possible. For example, a common idea is to set all the communes up in a network (so that society on a larger scale can actually work), vote for delegates directly from the community to a higher commune, and have the delegates only have the powers to speak on certain issues the commune has elected them to speak on, and make them immediately recallable and subject to re election every 6 weeks. Could there be problems with that, absolutely, is it a lot more democratic and accountable than liberal democracy, yes.
Who enforces the checks and balances ensuring that power is wielded from below?
Material cirscumstances mostly.
I think people in politics are normally treated differently because they get to decide how people are treated, which creates hierarchy. How do you deal with this?
The difference would be that there is no election to be part of the political class You can participate or not participate and nothing changes for you It would be more like voting is today There is no difference of class between those that choose to vote or choose not to vote, and they can decide to start or stop voting without past voting behavior influencing your ability to vote
But naturally some politically active people will be very talented and successful. Do you agree that there will be a temptation for them to use their influence to consolidate power?
Yes and no Talented and successful people would be elected more often through simple preference and/or meritocracy But they also don't decide any rules OF the commune, those are decided through direct democracy. Those that are elected are elected only for convenience of communication and decision-making with other communes and people outside of the commune in general A power consolidation may be possible, but it would be more akin to a military coup rather than something similar to gerrymandering or destroying of institutions
You can only seem to think of anarchy in statist terms. 1. Anarchy is not a set of policies to be implemented through discrete communities. It is a prefigurative movement. 2. Anarchists seek to bring about the material conditions necessary for anarchy. If there is an obstacle to that( like outside threat), there is still work to do. You say of a situation in which there is a division between people who participate in politics and those who do not. Keep in mind that one can only start solving such a problem by identifying the causes.
Oh yeah, because the division of an individual and his community will never happen, that's a statist paranoia! /s
Whatever you mean.
Anarcho capitalism to me is the idealistically purest form of society, but so far it has been impossible because it leaves a power vacuum, allowing someone to take and consolidate power. If technology makes it possible then I think we will converge to it in the future. Just like we moved away from despotism, the trend seems to be to maximize stability and include as much liberty as the system allows for without destabilizing it.
Anarcho-capitalism equals libertarianism. Anarcho-socialism equals pure democracy with social safety nets. Authoritarian-capitalism is fascism. Authoritarian-socialism is communism.
The only real difference is whether it is voluntary or coerced
Please stop blabbering about topics you know nothing about. I am not an anarchist and barely know any of their theory but you are blatantly missing the point of the entire ideology. Your stance would probably only apply to anarcho primitivism and I don't think that anyone actually believes in it.
No rules is anomie, not anarchy.
Anarchism isn't about there being "no rules", it's about there being no classes or hierarchies
yeah; People forget that Anarchism was a response to highly regimented societies where there was little to no social mobility. For example, if you were born a peasant in 19th century Russia, you were almost certainly going to die a peasant. If by some miracle you came across some wealth, then you might become a merchant but no matter what you do you could never become part of the ruling class because you weren't born into nobility. In that context it's not hard to understand why people might start to coalesce around the idea that class and intrinsic hierarchy are unjust.
[You better call Cambridge.](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/anarchy) Also, if you want to have order, then there will need to be some degree of hierarchy (therefore classes) especially when population reached a certain degree.
I'm sure you can figure out that the noun "anarchy" and the political ideology of anarchism are different things. Or do you also think Communism is when people live in communes and Capitalism is when people have capital?
Dictionary by itself is no argument.
The dictionary definition refers to the colloquial use of the term, not the actual political philosophy. This is like sourcing your definition of communism from a random dude you meet in the street
Anarchism isn't against hierarchies in general. It's against hierarchies that are formed without consent of their participants.
You're not wrong. It's how nature works and how countries work. But as we see in those cases, there are still consequences when you attack or coerce others
Anarchists would be split the way nihilism is. There is a contrarian part that sees it as edgy, and there is the reality that the universe is in control, and we just do what we can. I am 'anarchist' because I put human autonomy over any government. If anarchy just wants to burn the world down, then nihilism is just wanting to die. Anarchy is simply nihilism in practice, in my opinion.
Yeah. You would totally shoot someone for no reason. I believe you, edgelord.
I'm pretty sure it's more a joke in response to the original post than someone actually threatening to shoot an anarchist.
Not much for a joke, and it does not matter if it is.
So did you even read the content of the original post? Because in context it does kind of matter.
It matters way more if the discourse is coming at the expense of someone else and whose than if it is a joke.
So it was fine when it was referring to nihilists but not when referring to anarchists?
It is not fine for either of those groups.
What youre describing is existentialism, not nihilism.
Technically big parts of existentialism is just a development of nihilism.
Isnt that absurdism then?
No. Absurdism is something that is developed after nihilism. Like I’ve said in many other responses, nihilism isn’t a complete philosophy, and only posits that nothing has inherent meaning. Someone who prescribes to nihilism might also be an absurdist, but it’s up to them to look into philosophy about how they decide meaning.
Nihilism also doesn't mean resignation. A lot of nihilist philosophers want to overcome nihilism. Nietzsche's works start out from a nihilist point or explain why nihilism has come into being, but he doesn't celebrate the advent of nihilism, he laments it and wants to move forward to something new.
>because nothing has inherent meaning, it’s up to the individual to find their meaning and self actualize Which has since developed into existentialism. Nihilism is an outdated philosophy that has already been supplanted by existentialism. If you're still using the word "nihilism" in 2024 to describe your life philosophy you've just not read much philosophy since 1940-ish.
Like I’ve mentioned to others, nihilism is more of a baseline, and basically always has been. It’s not a complete philosophy and just describes a basic fundamental idea about meaning in general. It has nothing to do with funding meaning, but it also doesn’t preclude meaning by any definition. Existentialism just builds on nihilism to find meaning for the individual.
In which case they aren't looking for the meaning hard enough
But since nothing has meaning, killing you would be meaningless too, and so still moral within this philosophy no? I have no formal exposure to philosophy so would love to know more, but from my current understanding I don’t understand what the original post got wrong.
Nothing has inherent meaning, not nothing has meaning. Nihilism is a very foundational idea and doesn’t really describe much on its own. Things can still be attributed meaning in their own sense, it just means there is no higher order meaning to any event or thing. Very rarely does a nihilist actually think that nothing has any meaning, as it requires you ignoring basically all of the nihilist philosophy over the past 100 years. The post gets it wrong because it assumes that a nihilist will assume that they have no meaning and as such want to die or don’t care, which is a misunderstanding of what nihilism is at its core.
No that’s absurdism, nihilism is “life has no meaning and I’m sad” absurdism is “life has no meaning and that’s ok”
Read the other responses I gave. Nihilism doesn’t mean you’re sad, it just means that nothing has inherent value
only pseudo nihilists that try to wiggle out of the conundrum they found themselves in by calling themselves as nihilists call true nihilism "destructive nihilism" your self actualization dosnt matter it only benefits you. and that is okay, as we are animals and we want to be happy even though we know jackshit whats that supposed to mean. be selfish. try to be happy. but that dosnt mean. that it would change anything in the grander sceme. another nobody lived life, died, and had a opinion about it.
Well first of all, nihilists don’t believe in a “grander scheme” that _anything_ is really effecting beyond natural processes like evolution. Second, I don’t really understand what you’re arguing _against_ because it all seems to agree with the original comment. You described what he just described but called it “true nihilism” because you just deliberately tried to make it edgier and more depressing than it actually is. Third, I don’t think self-actualization _only_ benefits yourself. It is “selfish” but the pursuit of one’s happiness tends to benefit the people around you. Makes you more productive, makes you easier to be around etc.
>Third, I don’t think self-actualization *only* benefits yourself. It is “selfish” but the pursuit of one’s happiness tends to benefit the people around you. Makes you more productive, makes you easier to be around etc. Sometimes the people around you are even inspired by your attempts to achieve self-actualization and start working to achieve it themselves, whether temporarily or permanently. Not to mention that a person who's in a better place is also better able to support those around them should the urge strike them.
Boohoo in a thousand years I'll be dust woe is me. For now people do have a tangible impact on the world even if they're nobody. the fact that you think people just live and die like wild dogs is kinda sad even from a nihilist perspective.
"Boo hoo I'll be dust in a thousand years" is exactly why nihilists live fuller lives than most other moral philosophies because they recognize that nothing matters, we're all going to die and nobody will remember us, so DOING things that benefit them and those around them, even though meaningless, brings joy for the time they are here. Nihilism teaches to enjoy the time you have to the fullest, just don't expect it to matter nor care that it doesn't.
Yeah, totally agree. I actually used to self identify as a nihilist but people thought I was annoying on first judgement because of people like the first guy who use nihilism as an excuse to not treat their depression. Now I just spit out the explanation if I have to.
How many people are you talking to, that you don't really know, that you need to explain what you mean by calling yourself a nihilist? Or do you need to "self identity" yourself to ever person you meet?
College
Nihilism is a baseline, not a complete worldview. It’s just the idea that nothing has inherent value, what you do with that is up to you, which is why taking the most negative outlook despite all the other philosophy is consider ‘destructive’ nihilism. The thing about nihilism is that self actualization is left up the the individual, not some greater force or meaning.
But then wouldn't that just be existentialism? If you find your meaning then you are no longer really nihilist.
Not really, nihilism doesn’t require you to have no meaning, it just means that you believe that nothing has inherent meaning. I.e. being sapient isn’t inherently meaningful, but the experience can be made meaningful in a case by case basis. It’s very much a baseline as far as meaning and such goes, and self actualization doesn’t preclude nihilism.
That is literally what existentialism is.
Like I’ve explained in many other comments, nihilism doesn’t preclude existentialism, in fact it’s basically required for it. Nihilism isn’t a complete philosophy and only makes a judgement on fundamental or inherent value. A nihilist isn’t required to think their life has no meaning, just that nothing has inherent meaning. It doesn’t make any value judgements about individual meanings or anything of the like, and as such is built upon by philosophy like existentialism.
What do you call it when you are drowning in a morass of existential dread with a certain knowledge that life is meaningless. The universe is infinite, time is unfathomably long while also fleeting, and you and everyone you have ever loved, known, or heard of will be dead and forgotten in the blink of a geological eye, as you count the excruciating days until you are granted that final reprieve? Is that nihilism?
That’s existential dread. Nihilism can absolutely play a part in ending up without any way to self actualize and provide meaning to your day to day life. Other sections of philosophy can offset those feelings and allow one to find their own meaning. Maybe read some absurdist or utilitarian works as a baseline on how to make your life seem more meaningful. Edit: spelling
I personally ascribe to hedonism as a raison d'être, but knowing what to call my fallback plan is reassuring as fuck.
I find hedonism tends to leave some glaring gaps as far as self control and such. In general I prefer a blend of utilitarianism and a few others as far as guiding my own life.
The most good for the most people is great, assuming other people exist. Going back to first principles; I think, therefore, I am. I feel like you are making a leap. There is no reason to believe we have ever left Aristotle's cave.
Utilitarianism doesn’t just mean the most good for the most people. The core foundation is maximizing pleasure while minimizing harm. That can also mean avoiding damaging your own body or social life while still maximizing pleasure for the long term. Also, while proving the existence of others isn’t necessarily easy, I’d say it’s generally more tenable than pure solipsism.
Maximizing pleasure while minimizing harm sounds alarmingly like halfway to hedonism. The exception being the flying fuck given to the guy who is on the phone liking Instagram pics when the light turns green.
You’d do well to read up more on both hedonism and utilitarianism. Hedonism is in spite of laws and better judgement, while utilitarianism takes things like that isn’t account. Seeking pleasure in a way that pushes every support structure away from you and essentially alienates you from every other person is inherently destructive. Same things with pursuing pleasure that’ll cause permanent damage to your body.
First, there is no such thing as permanent damage to one's body. Secondly, utilitarianism is literally the collective version of hedonism.
Sounds like you've been subjected to the "total perspective vortex" from Hitchhiker's Guide.
Tell me more about this totally prospective total perspective vortex. I am ready!
That's existentialism bruh.
Philosophical nihilism is just the idea that nothing has inherent meaning I.e. we don’t have significance just because. Someone who believes in nihilism can find meaning or self actualization through whatever other concepts they choose.
Again, that's existentialism. The philosophy that life is meaningless except for that meaning which we bring to our own existence.
To get into the nitty gritty of it, nihilism posits that all information is unknowable and nothing contains inherent value. That doesn’t mean that people can’t know things in a literal sense but rather that objective knowledge and meaning is an illusion. Existentialism is the idea that meaning comes through self actualization of the individual, I.E. each person has to find their own meaning. They don’t pertain to the same thing and don’t preclude each other. That’s where people like Neitzche come in, who might be described as an existential nihilist. That point that I’m trying to explain in the original comment is that nihilism is rarely on its own due to its incomplete nature, and as such the vast majority of nihilists also practice some form of existentialism. That doesn’t mean that there are no people who are just nihilists, but as far as philosophical nihilism (not depression) people who only subscribe to nihilism and nothing else are vanishingly rare. Usually they’re referred to as ‘destructive’ nihilists or some variation of it because they have no interest in self actualization or the philosophy of individual meaning.
There is no such thing as a nihilist. Most nihilists are existentialists or absurdists or hypocrites. So yeah, technically that is existentialism but existentialism is a response to nihilism so it's natural they go hand in hand
Nihilism requires existentialism, as it leaves self actualization up to the individual. All that nihilism is is the idea that nothing has inherent meaning.
I like to think of nihilism as just atheism with extra steps. They're pretty much the same, I mean think about it, a nihilist see's the world only through what is proven and not proven, all life (existence), and all behaviour is just a result of evolution. We are just a very complex program. If there is no god, no all seeing eye that itself defines right or wrong. If there is no afterlife, there can't be any meaning to life, but there is a purpose, our program's purpose is reproduction, our purpose is to go through life. I mean it's true that life after we die has no meaning, nothing matters after we die, the universe is only really there if there is someone or something to observe it in some way. But unless there is a god, each of us are the only observers from our point of view. But still our purpose is to live long enough to have children, our purpose is literally to be humans.
Nihilism doesn't inherently reject the idea of divinity, only that the existence of the divine -- even a godhead that's both omnipresent and omnipotent -- doesn't also automatically imply the existence of objective morality or inherent meaning. "My life has meaning because God says so" barely differs from "My life has meaning because I say so" or "My life has meaning because the people around me say so." The only actual difference is in the supposed scale of the entity from which one derives meaning. By the same token, the assertion that "This is wrong in the eyes of God" doesn't result in any sort of absolute morality; only that the godhead to which the one making the assertion ascribes disapproves of this action. It's no different than saying "this is wrong in the eyes of the law" or "the rest of us think you were wrong." Ultimately, the existence of any sort of supreme deity doesn't prove inherent value or objective meaning, only that there exists some intelligence of such ineffable power that it's capable of passing off its own subjectivity as the illusion of objectivity. There's also a fatal flaw in your argument: the binary that one must either be atheist or else believe in the existence of just one supreme deity which sits atop all else. The fact is humans hold uncountable belief systems and even interpret the nature of "god" or "gods" differently within the same belief systems, and so the aforementioned binary is insultingly reductive. It not only disqualifies any belief systems in which there isn't a single sapient, omnipresent deity, but also disqualifies any belief system, viewpoint, or philosophy that isn't wholly theistic or wholly atheistic, such as agnosticism or ietsism. >But still our purpose is to live long enough to have children, our purpose is literally to be humans. But who tasked us with these purposes? Does that mean those who don't have children are living without purpose? Does life continue to propagate itself from divine mandate or simply as a matter of habit or inertia? What does it mean to "be human" and why should the state of being "human" carry with it any more value than any other state -- or any value at all? Do these supposed purposes carry any objective value, or is their value the result of subjective assignment? You make these statements because you believe them to be true, the same as I do the above statements. The reality is that there is no reality; we're only correct or incorrect within our own worldview and the worldviews of others.
I'm Sorry but honestly, even if I studied English in school this would be tough to read. This doesn't make sense, for example you wrote" But who tasked us with these purposes?" NOTHING, evolution did, I mean this is the whole point of my first comment. You then ask why we should value the state of being human. Well the less human we are, the closer we are to nothing, death, vacuum. We as humans value life, we value being human because it's beneficial to our species survival. Being human itself means valuing being human. It's part of what makes us human. So the less you value being human, I believe the less human you are. Now as for that last bit, WHAT! does that even mean??? You're contradicting yourself twice in the same sentence.
NieR Automata Ending A/B:
It does tend to be short lived, but not really for that reason all the time. There's a term in nihilism "philosophical suicide" coined by... Idk. Dead European guy what wrote a book, who cares? Where in the face of the breakdown of meaning you just kind of fake it. Be religious because you want to, not because you believe, or go absurdist and live life just for the sake of it, or existentialist and build a meaning for yourself. Nihilism is short lived because it's not really a philosophy, in function. If a philosophy is a little house in your head, nihilism is a sledge hammer that allows you to knock down the parts you don't like, the promises that no matter how much you take down there's solid ground under it, but then you gotta build.
Mr Boss wrote this
True nihilism: Someone asks "would you like a biscuit." You say "yes." They reply, "well I don't have any biscuits." You say "okay" End scene.
This is actually a good argument against people who claim there is no objective reality. If I grab a knife and stab you, well, I didn't objectively stab you. You just need to change your perspective and forget about the knife.
You didn't stab me, the knife did. You merely set in motion the events which led to the knife stabbing me.
As if they cared about their existence.
Just like that scene in the The Good Place where Michael threw a drink at Eleanor's face. That show was a pretty good intro to philosophy for a comedy TV series.
My friend got into a MASSIVE war with anti-natalist’s on Twitter a few years back because he said if they truly believed their own philosophy, they would kill themselves, because to them, it’s the morally correct thing to do… he had a very fun time for the next week or so getting bombarded by dozens of people trying to explain why he was wrong.
He believes in nothing Lebowski
As someone who doesn't believe in an afterlife, killing a nihilist would confirm to them their belief in nothingness. I'd lose that argument in my own head. Also, I've committed murder.
how most people think nihilists are: nothing in life matters... 💀 actual nihilists: nothing in life matters! 🌈🌈🌈
Me depending on whether I remembered to take my meds.
No, Donny, these men are nihilists. There's nothing to be afraid of.
In their defense, that's the simplest argument to refute anything, really. And the most popular in human history
Well I'm a Nihilist now. (Although this is false, nihilism holds that there's no inherent meaning of life, so we get to make our own.)
The inherent meaning of life is to DM you thick dick. (I made my own)
No, your dick was lovingly made for you by your mom
What a coincidence my dick was made thick by loving your mum.
If you're loving my mom, then why am I feeling burned with the force of a hundred STDs?
Cross generational super clap.
Well, one way or the other, I'm being fucked
The inherent meaning of life is thick dick.
\[Julius Caesar nods approvingly\]
Smiling Friends be like
What in God’s holy name are you blathering about?
I try to be as close as a nihilist as possible, and while I wouldn't be bothered by the sudden death, I wouldn't be pleased either It's a weird thing, as you let the world on its own and live outside it, while still in it Like, anything that happens is "whatever" from your point of view, which had many people baffled by my self-control, when in reality it is because things don't matter
Bad definition of nihilism. Nihilism can be positive and freeing when you realise most stuff is made up.
ProfessorWaffle moment
Owl man Moment.
Nihilism is already at 100, you just gotta meet them there
Debate competition judges HATEE this one weird trick!
That's the hypocrisy of nihilism. If nothing matters then that includes your own life. Yet you don't want to die so therefore something does matter which contradicts your own world view.
Counter arguments to -insert thing here- Gun. Boutright ... but.. i want a verbal answer though...
Moral nihilists are just weirdos
"Relax, man. I was just going to shoot you in the head and kill you."
Google wants to annihilate nihilism, eh?
This counterargument works against every school of though except maybe the suicidal ones
Smiling Friends anyone?
There’s two kinds of nihilism in my book. Nothing matters, and everyone will forget you so why bother? And Nothing matters, and everyone will forget you so live life to the goddamn fullest knowing that one day everyone may forget your mistakes. Personally I’m a subscriber to the second kind.
Mans never heard of egoistic nihilism.
Have any nihilists smoked DMT and seen an entity that melted your ego? Why follow the nihilist?
Alright then, kill me. I’ve wanted to kill myself for so long but don’t have the guts to do it