paintboxsoapworks.com/the-nihili … rant-free/
Can someone here loan me 13 bucks?
Nil
I dont blekeve in noting
Melancholia
Stefan Bolea takes us on a tour of European nihilism.
And this is a frame of mind that, perhaps, any number of nihilists have entertained. I know that I have. And for me it flows from the assumption that human existence is an essentially meaningless sojourn to oblivion. Why not go all the way out on the cynical limb and imagine the worst. After all, it’s no less entangled in the assumption itself.
And, from my frame of mind, the cynicism and sarcasm reflect but another psychological defense mechanism, however twisted. The consolation being that “I” have figured this all out while others live on in their delusions of morality and immortality.
Others have their own “intellectual contraptions”. This one:
Or this one:
The bottom line being that any particular reaction to events portrayed in the film are going to be subsumed in dasein. And here you can only communicate to others what you think and feel up to a point. After all, unless someone has lived your life, what can they possibly know about what you think and feel when confronting extinction. There are only those who come closer to the experiences that you have had.
Still, my point is that, at this juncture, even we ourselves are only able to grasp our lives existentially–subjectively, subjunctively. There are simply too many variables [going back to the cradle] that were/are/will be either beyond our control or our understanding.
Woody Allen, Nihilist
By Matthew Boudway at Commonweal website
Let’s face it, if one is convinced there is no essential meaning able to be ascribed to human interactions, nor any font onto/into which one can anchor an objective morality, then why can’t the sexual abuse of children be rationalized? If, in the absence of God all things are permitted, then nothing is really out of the question. Instead, your focus shifts from “is this the right thing to do” to “will I be caught if I do it”. You may rationalize any behavior but you still live among those who do not.
Me? Well, I’m as ambiguous in regard to this as I am in regard to all other issues relating to value judgments and identity at the juncture of any particular political economy.
Others of course will then ask: “Wait, are you saying that abusing children sexually is neither right nor wrong, but embodied subjectively in whatever predisposition any particular individual happens to accept here and now?”
Well, yeah. My own moral philosophy revolves around the assumption – another existential contraption – that in a no God world, there does not appear to be an a demonstrable argument from either science or philosophy that is able to establish beyond all doubt what all rational men and women are obligated to believe in regard to human sexuality. Or, if there is one, I haven’t come across it yet. Or, yeah, I have come across it but am not intellectually sophisticated enough to understand it.
I certainly don’t deny that possibility.
And then there are those among us who take a leap of faith as sociopaths, solely to whatever furthers their own selfish wants and needs. And, sans God, where’s the rebuttal to that?
So, given these assumptions, it’s not that there is no justice, but that justice itself in a No God world would appear to be no less an existential contraption rooted in dasein.
Woody Allen, Nihilist
By Matthew Boudway at Commonweal website
Probably. But what are the “convictions and insights” of the author in regard to a moral context in which the deontologists themselves come down on opposite ends of the political spectrum?
That’s the part I always point to. Say that you are one of those philosophers [from Aristotle to Ayn Rand] who champions one or another rendition of moral objectivism [derived from God to Reason] but you bump into other philosophers who, while sharing this conviction, insist that your value judgments are the wrong ones. You both agree that philosophers can determine the optimal or the only rational moral agenda in prescribing [rewarding] and proscribing [punishing] behaviors in regard to any particular conflicting good, but only your own value judgments are examples of this.
And you know where I’ll take this: to “I” as an existential contraption rooted in dasein. And what of the sociopaths who rationalize predatory sexual behavior because for them morality revolves solely around sustaining their own wants and needs. Where is the philosophical argument able to demonstrate that this is – necessarily – irrational? In a No God world.
I’m not suggesting that the argument doesn’t exist, only that [here and now] I am not myself cognizant of it.
Indeed. And my argument here is that the moral objectivists recoil from this because it prompts them to examine their own value judgments and behaviors as “existential contraptions rooted in dasein” rooted in a particular world historically, culturally and circumstantially. And a “softer” or “harder” frame of mind is, to me, just another manifestation of “I” as constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed along a particular path embodied in a particular life.
Though, sure, if others are able to to offer up alternative moral narratives and political agenda, by all means, let them.
But: Just because my own frame of mind here is disturbing [to some] doesn’t make it wrong.
My views are more disturbing to you than yours are to me. Nobody in existence wants their consent violated.
Very simple.
I even go on to state that all we can do in this world (no matter what we do) is violate someone’s consent.
I even stated further that the goal of life here is to violate as little consent as possible. The goal in the cosmos is to eradicate consent violation for everyone forever.
So you decided to ignore me. Apparently, it violates your consent that objective morality exists.
When I tell you I’ve been resurrected 3 times and that I’ve been to hell, you decided to ignore me as the crazy person. That’s my life story dude. It really happened. My mind is beyond the veil between life and death. But that doesn’t fit into your little box, your existential contraption.
Woody Allen, Nihilist
By Matthew Boudway at Commonweal website
Here’s the thing though…
He might believe this, but like those who believe exactly the opposite, he appears unable to actually demonstrate that this is in fact true.
Instead, as with you and I and everyone else, all that need matter is what we have come to believe as [in my view] the embodiment of dasein. One set of experiences out in a particular world will give rise to one frame of mind, another set of experiences, another frame of mind altogether.
I merely suggest that given this there does not appear to be argument available to philosophers that would allow us to conclude what rational men and women are obligated to believe regarding what is either true or false about “the meaning of life”.
Sure, if you think Allen and folks like me are full of shit, fine, explain why. If you’re convinced that objectively, essentially human existence does have meaning then, hey, by all means, note the premises of your argument and then note how they can be aggregated into a demonstrable proof of that meaning.
Here again all I request is that any philosophical text be illustrated by taking the conclusions and integrating them into a particular context in which men and women embrace conflicting goods. Why? Because these conflicts clearly generate an enormous amount of human pain and suffering. Pain and suffering derived in large part from making conflicting assumptions about what is the right thing and the wrong thing to do. In “this situation” or “that situation”.
Besides, it seems rather obvious to me that the extent to which one does have a pessimistic view of life is more likely to revolve around sets of circumstances that allow for little or no real satisfaction and fulfillment. Then you can go to the philosophy texts. Or if existentially your life is bursting at the seams with all manner of really, really gratifying things who the hell needs philosophy then anyway?
Meaning then can revolve instead around all the things that do make you feel good and that do bring you comfort and consolation.
Yeah, the things I call “distractions”. Interactions with the world around you that both satisfy you and keep you at a distance from things that dissatisfy you. Whatever works. Then it comes down to how you intertwine this into some acceptance of morality or from the perspective of the narcissistic sociopath: me, myself and I.
Bingo! What nihilism can ultimately come to encompass for all practical purposes in a No God world that is essentially meaningless. But, once you are convinced that death equates with oblivion, choosing behaviors can become tricky, problematic. Why? Because on the one hand, if you don’t do what you want now, you may never get another chance to do it at all. But if you do things that you want and they are dangerous you risk losing the only life that you will ever have. Or you risk the ire of those who will confront you. Or the law in which the only freedom you will ever have [given human autonomy] is placed in jeopardy.
After all, what if you can’t get away with it? Or what if you do, and it results in some terrible fate that cripples the only life you will ever have.
Nihilism like most things is not a one size fits all assessment.
Woody Allen, Nihilist
By Matthew Boudway at Commonweal website
First of all, relevant quotes from Crimes and Misdemeanors:
Professor Levy: [voiceover] We are all faced throughout our lives with agonizing decisions. Moral choices. Some are on a grand scale. Most of these choices are on lesser points. But! We define ourselves by the choices we have made. We are in fact the sum total of our choices. Events unfold so unpredictably, so unfairly, human happiness does not seem to have been included, in the design of creation. It is only we, with our capacity to love, that give meaning to the indifferent universe. And yet, most human beings seem to have the ability to keep trying, and even to find joy from simple things like their family, their work, and from the hope that future generations might understand more.
Aunt May: There’s this joke about the prizefighter who enters the ring. And his brother turns to the family priest and says “Father, Pray for him.” And the priest said “I will. But, if he can punch, it’ll help.”
Rabbi: So what are you saying May? You’re saying you’re challenging the whole moral structure of everything?
Aunt May: What moral structure? Is that the kind of nonsense you use on your pupils?
Rabbi: Do you not find human impulses basically decent?
Aunt May: There’s basically nothing!
Rabbi: What are you saying May? There’s no morality anywhere in the whole world?
Aunt May: For those who want morality, there’s morality. Nothings handed down in stone.
Judah: You’ve seen too many movies. I’m talking about reality. I mean, if you want a happy ending, you should go see a Hollywood movie.
Miriam: Judah, I don’t know what’s wrong with you these days. You’re a different person.
Judah: I believe in God, Miriam. I know it. Because, without God the world is a cesspool.
Maybe not a cesspool in a No God world, but, in my view, sans God, there is no way in which a mere mortal can pin down when it does becomes one. Philosophically, for example. Or ethically. Even historical events like the Holocaust are viewed by some as moral triumphs. Judah ends up sanctioning the murder of Dolores even while admitting to Jack, “It’s pure evil! A man kills for money and he doesn’t even know his victims!”
He professes a belief in God that in fact he does not really have. By the end of the film he recounts the experience to Cliff thusly:
And after the awful deed is done, he finds that he’s plagued by deep-rooted guilt. Little sparks of his religious background which he’d rejected are suddenly stirred up. He hears his father’s voice. He imagines that God is watching his every move. Suddenly, it’s not an empty universe at all, but a just and moral one, and he’s violated it. Now, he’s panic-stricken. He’s on the verge of a mental collapse-an inch away from confessing the whole thing to the police. And then one morning, he awakens. The sun is shining, his family is around him and mysteriously, the crisis has lifted. He takes his family on a vacation to Europe and as the months pass, he finds he’s not punished. In fact, he prospers. The killing gets attributed to another person-a drifter who has a number of other murders to his credit, so I mean, what the hell? One more doesn’t even matter. Now he’s scot-free. His life is completely back to normal. Back to his protected world of wealth and privilege.
Clearly, that might not have been something that you could ever imagine yourself doing. But the reason God becomes so crucial here is that with God there is no question of of Judah getting away with what he set in motion. And there is no question of him being punished for it.
No God and that then disintegrates into whatever behaviors one can rationalize. Or, being a sociopath, simply shrugging it all off from the perspective of an amoral frame of mind.
“Viable albeit false”. And what particular context could that be applicable to other than one in which others are obligated to think about the behaviors as he does. Ultimately chilling only to the moral objectivists who insist that an essential [even universal] morality is within the grasp of mere mortals in a No God world.
And, sure, there may well be. So, let’s hear it. Let’s see how one would go about demonstrating it to the moral nihilists [like me] and the sociopaths.
And the point isn’t whether Allen is or is not guilty of child abuse but that child abuse itself is just one more behavior that can be rationalized by some once they conclude there is no omniscient and omnipotent God. That, instead, their behaviors revolve around self-gratification and not getting caught by those who see the abuse of children as a moral affront to either God or their own Humanism. That attached either to a political ideology or a deontological philosophical assessment.
Some of my best fiends are nihilists. 
My best and only friend, ever, said if he were ever asked
said if they ever were , they wouldn’t …
tell.
Course , cpuldnt
There is a huge problem inherent in nihilism, it does regress back into a state that is am anti-state…
Nature, must be admitted nominally as a presumptive process, which did evolve into the conscious entity that we experience today .
The anti-state., reduced to the anti-hero utilizes the same archaic elements the hero can conscript of the state, but in diametrically opposing ways. So any argument posed either
way, presupposes a slant, either way, as well.
The return into Plato’s cave becomes Nietzsche’s depth staring back, and resetting the automorphic paradox.
That mirror stage, resets anew the eye, through which individual consciousness need recycle toward what has become simulated reality.
The will toward nihilism merely shows this possibility, and the antihero must travel down again into the subterranian underworld, as the mythic religions have prescribed to, below the level of Christian doctrine, which basically could not descend there any more.
Redemptive efforts did not work, works of the conscience
have not been shaken to below that ground, that.prescrinee to archaic modes of.expressions of struggle .
Dasein is assailed by the fear of the fall, the depth of which is unassailable.
The anti-hero is, by necessity , becomes.the next stage.
Again, that I reduce you down to “quips” like this speaks volumes regarding what I can only imagine as the trepidation you feel that one day I may well succeed in pulling your own comforting and consoling rug out from under you.
And then you too will be on the road to a “fractured and fragmented” personality.
On the other hand, at least you won’t still be a Stooge. 
Woody Allen, Nihilist
By Matthew Boudway at Commonweal website
Of course I imagine that any number of folks here will be adamant in their assurance that others should be suspicious of moral nihilists like me. I even manage to push a few of them all the way over edge into posting rather fierce declamatory warnings about me.
Now, I suspect that reactions of this sort are predicated more on their concern [conscious or not] that I may be right. That, in fact, the manner in which they construe their own self out in the world of conflicting goods may in turn be an “existential contraption rooted in dasein”. That they too may well find themselves sinking down into the “hole” that is a fractured and fragmented personality.
Oh, indeed it does. After all, if one comes to accept that, “in the absence of God, all things are permitted”, what might they themselves come to permit regarding their own behaviors. Is there a potential sociopath lurking inside us that just needs the right sequence of experiences – the right set of circumstances – to bring out?
Instead, they have managed to sustain the belief that they really are at one with the real me at one with the right thing to do at one with this or that God, this or that spiritual path, this or that ideology, this or that philosophy, this or that assessment of nature. Ever and and always it is that they believe in the objective [even universal] distinction between good and evil rather than in whatever that moral and political distinction might be.
And, again, the sheer irony here is that, by and large, our world is owned and operated by those who, in sustaining a global economy through government policies that revolve around “show me the money”, the moral nihilists already “run the world” by and large.
America. Russia. China. And all the rest of them. It’s all about markets and cheap labor and natural resources.
No “philosopher kings” around yet to change that.
For two points, name a single problem that philosophers have solved in 2,400 years. Or even better…name a single problem they aren’t still arguing about.
unmade
Philosophy has helped solve all sorts of problems. That’s right help solve, since it is a set of tools to create ideas much more than to, by iteself resolve issues. Darwin was strongly influenced by the philosophical discussions of his time. Empiricism obviously influenced the solving of an unbelievable number of problems once applied. Newton was strong influenced by a couple of philosophers. It’s a bit like saying what problems did mathematics solve. Well, apart from mathematical proofs, not only applied math has solved all sorts of problems (applied by physicists say) but even pure math has turned out to end up helping explain all sorts of phenomena. In itself they don’t really resolve very much. Just like hammers don’t. But tools couples with other knowledge or in the case of a hammer with knowledge and a body can solve problems. Philosophy has been presenting people with new ideas and way sof thinking and ways to eliminate falsehoods, how to notice assumptions, how to notice belief systems and paradigm and models, how language can lead us astray and epistemological options and much much more. It’s a category error to bring up things like free will vs determinism and the like and say, oh, well it hasn’t solved anything
Good catch. You know, for a run-of-the-mill pragmatist.
Unless, of course, that’s a category error. 
Iambiguous,
Come to the abyss with me. Oh that’s right, you’re such a pussy that you put me on ignore.
Nihilism is not the abyss. Nihilism is a reaction (mirroring) of this cruel world as a defense mechanism. Who’s the scared one here, you or me?
You’re just an adolescent posturing here iambiguous!
Not an adult. You are the kid you accuse everyone else of being.
Bro I think you got it backwards. Why would one endorse nihilism as a ‘defense’ mechanism?
Subconscious mind: 'Gosh you know, I think believing that I’m mortal, that the universe is meaningless and that nothing matters, might make me feel better. I think I’d like to be a nihilist because that’ll help me ignore my real problems.
Buddy. Those ARE the real problems. We are not escaping here. We are not telling ourselves comfortable lies.
christ that wuz dumb. Why would somebody believe THE WORST CASE SENARIO to make themselves feel BETTER?
Woody Allen, Nihilist
By Matthew Boudway at Commonweal website
Bingo!
Well, one of them.
This encompasses my reaction to the Humanists among us. Of which I was once one myself. They reject the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent God as 1] a font assuring a definitive differentiation between moral from immoral behavior, as 2] an omnipresent point of view assuring us that no one can ever get away with immoral behavior and as 3] an all powerful Being assuring us that the immoral behavior will be punished.
Yet, while accepting the actual existential reality of 2 and 3 in a No God world, they still insist their own philosophical or political or [for some] scientific assessments can at least determine which behaviors are in fact moral and which are not.
And, okay, I ask them to bring their own assumptions here out into the world and demonstrate to us why, in a world bursting with conflicting goods about practically everything, their own moral narrative and political agenda encompasses either the optimal perspective from which to concoct “rules of behavior” or is, in fact, the only rational perspective. Given that, down through the ages, there have been hundreds of them for us to choose from.
And, given the argument of the nihilists and the sociopaths that, in the absence of God, all things are permitted. How philosophically, politically or scientifically is that necessarily wrong?
Unless, of course, given a No God world, there is in fact an argument from the Humanists that transcends the arguments from the sociopaths and the nihilists. My own participation on this thread reflects the ambivalence that consumes me in confronting this. On the one hand, I would like to believe that my own frame of mind here is a reasonable point of view. That I am capable of being rational here. On the other hand, I would like to come across an argument that refutes it. Why? Because in believing it I remain “fractured and fragmented” here and now, preparing to topple over in the abyss that is oblivion there and then.
The irony being that if determinism gets “hard” enough, I am left believing that I am left believing only that which I was ever able to believe in a world where human volition is just a psychological illusion.
And yet I recognize that my own intelligence is hardly the most supple one around. Even here. So there is always the possibility that someone can come up with an argument that hopefully crumples mine to dust.
Nihilism & Philosophy by Gideon Barker
Roger Caldwell scrutinises philosophical revolutions.
Book Review
Yes, that is clearly one way in which to spin it. On the other hand, a moral nihilist, in rejecting both religious and secular fonts as the basis for an objective morality and/or a doctrinaire political agenda, can instead advocate more for moderation, negotiation and compromise – democracy and the rule of law as the “best of all possible worlds” relating to social, political and economic interactions.
Given of course the historical parameters of political economy. And given the extent to which any particular “I” here might topple over into the “fractured and fragmented” hole that “I” am in.
Come on, any philosophy can only be grappled with in terms of how one connects the dots existentially between theory and practice. Indeed, name a single school of philosophy that does not make claims up in the clouds that, upon coming down to earth and becoming intertwined in human interactions, finds the going considerably more problematic.
Start with the assumptions made by any of the Great Philosophers and defend them in a particular context in which the components of my own moral philosophy come into play.
Go ahead, pick one and see what unfolds.