A unique approach to the discussion on nihilism.

Interesting situation (and well stated).

So you want to convince yourself that you know nothing?
…except that life and family is good (I guess).

“I want to believe that all mathematics is indeterminate except 2+2=4 and 3*3=5.”

…hmmm…

I suspect your “starting all over” option would be the better one.

A person cannot change anything of himself without discipline, “faith in oneself”.
But then a person who wants to change himself has faith in what exactly?

Suggestion;
Get a blank bound writing booklet and promise yourself that you will write nothing in that book until you are 100% absolutely certain that it is either true or valuable, depending on which concern you are seeking, truth or value.

Of course, depending, you could possibly just forget the book because it would take quite a while before even the first entry, so it helps to have incentive. Two historical incentives have been;
“don’t speak until you speak absolute truth” and
“don’t move until you know absolute value”.

Of course you will want to compromise, maybe with;
“speak only of niceties until you know an absolute truth to speak instead” and
“don’t eat until you know absolute value”.

But I suspect you would want to compromise even further.
But you get the idea, right?

Thank you, as well.

Well, I think my life would be in bad shape if I believed all math is indeterminate, but I’ll believe 3*3=5 if I must, it’s not like I work with numbers in any important capacity.

I don’t even want to recognize my self let alone have faith in it. A cat has faith in life and he or she doesn’t have even the notion of self according to most zoologists. A cat will learn to hunt rats instead of mice if necessity dictates. Necessity dictates nihilism for me, and thank you for offering your view as to that question.

Actually, years of looking for truth had the incidental effect of leaving with little “accomplishments”, so you’re absolutely right. Now that I don’t believe in absolute value I’m getting a few things done here and there.

It can be an important morality depending on your situation in life. I find that, most of the time, people who are consciously and actively selfish are people who are troubled. I think it’s an instinct that turns one’s attention to the self in order to focus on self-healing (or at the very least, getting all one’s ducks in a row).

Truth is not something can be found.
We are here, now, just because there is not Truth.
However, searching the Truth, with our faith in the Truth, we can become ourselves.

I consider Karl Jaspers my master.
Although both Jaspers and Heidegger are Philosophies of Existence, to me there is a great difference among the two. I don’t appreciate Heidegger because I consider him not genuine.

I agree with how much written by Jaspers about Truth, particularly in his book: “On the truth” (Von der Wahrheit).

Sartre belongs to Existentialism, he is certainly interesting, but to me he is not as deep as Jaspers.
And it is indeed necessary to go to depth.
Because nihilism, not the strong one but the weak nihilism that is diffused wherever, is a serious danger. Weak nihilism has produced the nazism, the fascism and who knows what other evil in the future it will produce.

Forgive me for my English, is not my native language.
I’m writing here just because I have to…

^ I’m also a fan of Jaspers, and I too think Heidegger is kind of a dick. Sartre I think is just a big nerd.

I think the statement “there is not Truth” is untenable. I am the fucking truth (or you are the truth, so as to not sound conceited or something).

Sartre’s not weak! Sartre is strong! Just kidding, it’s just that I’ve studied him far more than anyone else so far.

I’m kidding too - sort of. I’m quite certain I couldn’t have a truly in-depth conversation about him, I just remember not liking him at all (had to read Being and Nothingness for school), and, not being able to pinpoint why I didn’t like him, I just decided on “This guy’s a fucking nerd, yeah that’s it.”

It’s interesting how this OP phenomenologically reduced (literally) the concepts of faith(good or bad), free will, rationality/faith (as in either/or), being, nothingness, etc. The necessity of annihilation comes not from free will, as though it was a moral imperative, but as grounded in counter logic. If you were to say that Being and Nothingness have a logical relationship, then the next step to take is to say, we could not make the distinction, if it were not for the fact, that we have to introduce a third element, (nihilism), to be able to make the distinction. It is of logical necessity to nihilise, in order to distinguish one from the other. But the distinctions are then, reduced to a nominal -definitional distinction. If the logical reduction is not made, the idea of annihilation itself, is not possible. Therefore the reduction is prior.

In fact there is no logical need to reduce, only if you intend to make the distinction. (Between Being and Nothing-ness). So intentionality, as I understand it become the key. To the whole process. But why?

What is the object of the intention? Or it’s ground? Well that is a tough one, but another differentiation comes to mind between continental philosophy and empirical/utilitarian philosophy. The motive behind continental philosophy is traditional, and has its genesis in mostly german idealism, and existentialism grew quickly as a method to quickly align with the political crisis that was emerging c. 1848-1945. The urgency and desire to reduce the phenomenological basically cartisian-heglelian duality, -into marxian terms (sartre)—was the motivation. The ground was the economic (marxian interpretation of hegel)

So, faith in nihilism, is like looking glass. What can be seen there? A preoccupation with moral imperatives? In order to avert the dramatic revolutionary conflicts? Or is there more? A severe pessimism of political motives ascribing some connection with the notion that civilization’s discontents were basically due to repression on extremely basic levels? What can be seen? Delusions of mythic proportions on wagnerian scales again to compensate for a reality bankrupted on fallen idols?

Probably all of the above. That it didn’t work is obvious. Revolutions for idyll, bachanalles and such always reminders of who cleans up after the party, and somehow no one wants to, because everybody thought that the party would last.

You are right, in a rational point of view.
Because truth is the foundation for any rational thought.

My saying “there is not Truth” is instead an outcry of pain, and also a breath of hope…

You sure know the shipwreck of Jaspers.
It is when we end in front of the Nothing that the true faith can turns up.

Faith in the Nothingness, a Nothingness source of infinite possibilities.
Even if the truth could instead be: the Absolute Nothingness.

This is sad, but everyone has its authors.

Searching for Truth??
That is like making a conscious effort to find your consciousness. You could spend the rest of your life ignoring your life.
In case you didn’t get it, what I had recommended was to stop trying to find it and instead provide the means for it to find you.

And yet,Gadamer looked back prior to Nietzche, when it was still possible to reconcile the differences with Kant., and he studied with Jaspers. Maybe Jaspers’ take was too psychoanalitic, seeking qiick fixes? I believe the “transperency of the self” became contentious between them. The anthropological-hermenautic approach.

Thanks for all the responces, I’ll get back to them today or tomorrow.

Nah, just having some fun.

Yes, that’s exactly why I’m fairly selfish these days. But, the problem is most people are simply unconsciously and passively selfish.

It isn’t that people are concerned for and about themselves.
It is HOW they do it.

obe, I think I was speaking about nihilism in just that manner in Part 1 of of the OP, but perhaps I misunderstood you. The issue with intention versus active free will and passivity etc. is one I’m still trying to sort out as I study Sartre and Heidegger. The rest of your post goes way beyond me, but I will note that Sartre advocated changing one’s mind in pre-war B&N and apperantly after the war he did just that. I’ve heard various suggestion of political motives in B&N, I’ve read it enough times to be fairly confident that there isn’t any politics in it, it seems to be the very antithesis of opinions, values, judgements, etc.

I can see Jaspers being to psychoanalitical. Out of Gadamer and Jaspers, was Jaspers the one most against the “transperency of the self”?

Yes, we’re on the same page there. I used to search for truth I don’t anymore.

That sounds like a good approach assuming I were to even recognize the existence of the “truth” which I should provide the means to find. If you’d like I’ll listen to any more example of how to do that, being that the ones you gave don’t seem that useful.

I agree that as long as we subscribe to the traditional western view of “self” one really can’t help but only have that concern. It’s really just about whether or not one tries to contradict their natural inclination to self interest or not, I used to, now I don’t. So when speaking in terms of our opinions about “morality” or how we’d like others to act, the “how” definitely is the concern. In the context of nihilism, I don’t think the “how” makes a difference.

The island was clearly divided and also becoming over populated.
There were two distinct and separated cultures.
One pursued survival, the other pursued nihilism.

Three generations later, there was only one culture with plenty of land to give to their children.