Alright, back to the discussion then. 
plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/
Does not exist in space and time but exists nonetheless?
Am I the only one seeing an issue with this?
On steroids…
I do not think nihilism can stand on its own as a philosophy since in physics “nothingness” does not nor can exist. Singularity, the prime cause, cannot be ignored/bypassed/dismissed, and when it does premises are doom to fall apart.
“nothingness” without “wholeness” is not debatable because every thought implies a preexisting (cosmic) dualism. Thought itself is a manifestation of that very dualism, I mean.
Most nihilists do not deny there existing a physical reality.
It is the mental state or mind of human beings having any interaction with the objective that nihilists deny and doubt.
How ironic that Platonism’s entire philosophy seems to be centered inside its own allegory of a cave.
The Platonists chasing their own shadows in the dark.
I only follow Plato’s own “platonic solid theory” , which asserts that the geometry of solids is the foundation of the fabric of the Universe, on a subatomic and cosmic level as well, all ruled by pi and phi. And this is the area where he cannot be debunked, I am afraid.
there is no mainstream philosophy that is 101% correct. Each philosopher has flaws and qualities. By mainstream, I mean criteria defined by academia, which is a cartel in my opinion.
I regard philosophy as a patient on his death bed. everything will be soon rewritten
First of all I would not call one of those boths nihilism forms “post-modern”, because it is a modern phenomenon.
The difference is almost what you also already (but more allusively or suggestively) said in another thread (I can’t find it at the moment): Socratism and Platonisms changed the Ancient-Greek philosophy and this change was criticised by the ancient cynics (Antisthenes, Diogenes and others), but later this became normal, so Socratism and especially Platonism and followers became cynical as well and they mixed with “movements” like the Stoics and the Christians. I know ,this statement is especially a Nietzschean statement, but nevertheless: it is true. Nietzsche called himself a “Cyniker” instead of “Zyniker” (this is the correct spelling form in German) just to show that he did not want to be a modern cynic (“Zyniker”) but an ancient cynik (“Cyniker”). By the way: To make it more Ancient-Greek-alike he should have called himself a “Kyniker”, I think. So a “Cyniker” or “Kyniker” is cynical towards the “Zyniker” - because the ancient cynics have become normal, thus more and more the modern cynics which can only be cynically criticised by cynics who are more again like the ancient cynics (therefore: Cyniker/Kyniker versus Zyniker). Now I am saying that there are two different forms of nihilism as well, because cynism and nihilism belong together, although they are not the same (cynism is a subset of nihilism, so to say), and there are more than two forms of nihilism. But in that said post I was talking about two different forms of nihilism: one of the Ancient-Greek culture and one of the Occidental culture. They are different. Our modern nihilism we are confrontated with is (1) a more regulated one than the ancient one was and (2) much more active than the ancient one was. But I don’t exactly know whether they can be used against each other. Probably this phenomenon is comparable with the speed of light, because it has always the same amount, whereas other velocities can have different amounts.
Yes, but that is more the Ancient-Greek variant of nihilism, whereas our Modern-Occidental variant of nihilism is more regulated and more active than the Ancient-Greek variant of nihilism was. The Modern-Occidental nihilist says: “You are allowed to do x”, although he/she knows that it is unethical, immoral. This is the cynically regulated side of the Modern-Occidental nihilism, the cynically unregulated side of the Modern-Occidental nihilism is the destruction of all values with the support of the cynically regulated side.
Doesn’t make much sense to argue about what does or doesn’t exist until you settle on what it means “to exist”.
Plato, of course, posited but one more rendition of God. And in whatever capacity he connected the dots, he seemed to surmise that once out of the cave it was possible for one or another rendition of the philosopher-king to grasp a “formal” reality linked to this God.
How then did he “prove” the existence of God? Here’s one take on it:
academia.edu/7530315/Plato_s … _Existence
Which is to say that he did not really prove the existence of God at all. He merely defined or deduced him into existence “philosophically” in a world of words. In other words, in his head.
Again, from my perspective, nihilism revolves more around a world in which, in the absence of God, there are still things that we can know objectively: mathematics, the laws of nature, the logical rules of language. These things are true and encompass any number of contextual “meanings” that are applicable to all of us.
But, regarding the question, “how ought I to live?”, there does not appear to be a personal narrative or political agenda that can in turn be said to be applicable to all of us.
Which is why I refer to myself as a moral nihilist.
I would never argue that meaning itself does not exist. Instead, with respect to social, political and economic interaction, there are things that we can know that enable us to accomplish a particular task or a purpose. But when those tasks and purposes come into conflict there does not seem to be an overall Meaning that all rational men and women are obligated to either apprehend or pursue.
And, as for a “teleology”, how “on earth” can we possibly tie everything together such that we derive the meaning “of it all”.
In other words, without God?
this view has been tackled and asserted many times, not only by Plato… the aether fits right in. It is an abstract concept/reality.
Why do we have to “be” something outside of what we obviously are? Such as living beings, living humans, and so forth?
Saying something like “I’m a nihilist”, or “I’m a Christian”, or “I’m a Neo-Kantian Objectivist Post-Nietzchian Positivist” or whatever the hell describes nothing at all. Explains nothing at all. And then we have to defend if we are “true” nihilists, or christians, or whatever-the-hell.
That is not philosophy. Speak of yourself and your views, and how you came to the views you inhabit, and stop speaking about what intellectual costume you have bought. Or don’t.
I’m not telling anyone what to do. I’m saying that discussions of this sort (which pervade both philosophy and every day life) are fruitless. Anyone can define anything however they like. So someone saying “I’m a this and that” and another person saying “but you can’t be a this and that with THAT view” is getting caught up in a bunch of futile language games. Tell me who you are, what you know, and how you know it.
Categorization is necessary in conveying an understanding of what kind of beliefs individuals have.
It’s quite useful actually.
Words (or categorizations) are necessary for communication (and logic), but when the ideal (the fabricated world) takes precedence over WHAT IS (the actual world) then I need to question it. One can call oneself a “nihilist” and have extraordinary similar views to one who calls themselves a gnostic (or whatever), while having very, VERY different views from another who also calls themselves a nihilist. If we could simply define these words and what they mean without having to explain them, than I would have no problem with it. But when, right at the outset, someone calls themselves a “thus and thus” and people start fighting over what “thus and thus” “actually” means, then it simply get in the way of discussion.
Explain your views, your truths, your beliefs, without labeling yourself as “thus and thus”, and then the rest of us can examine them and give feedback, and then you might have the wonderful opportunity of someone else labeling you. Maybe it’s just a preference, but I’d rather have other people categorize me than categorize myself, so that I may be labelled as correctly and as objectively as I can be, based on what I say rather than what label I have given myself before hand.
We are living, breathing creatures. I do not understand why we need to attach ourselves to non-living, dead ideals. May you enlighten me as to why such an activity is necessary?
You’ve just answered your own question. It’s useful for communication.