Debating The Old Goat

Yes, that’s right, an egotistical rejection of another’s will.

Denying all authority is the next step in that you’re not just denying another’s will but also denying the will of the collective and any abstracted form of authority that tries to impose itself on your individual will.

You’re a fucking idiot.

Who I dare ask?

Note: this is meant as a pre-emtive defensive move on my part, for I am still a kid.


Oh then it’s ok, I guess. But can’t go one or the other with it, never met the guy, so it would be bad taste on my part , to opinionate , but feel like, well non-expurgated, never-the-less.

You might be a retard if you claim to have a special solidified objectified stance on everything possessing some sort of magical uniformic reasoning to all of reality without even explaining fully what your foundational reference for such a stance really is.

You might be a retard if you criticize the universalism of others only to interject your own all encompassing brand of philosophical universalism by comparison. Hypocrisy much?

Its not about wills, nor one will over another. Firstly because there is no such thing, and secondly because its about how we share the earth, wealth and utility [work]. Anarchism suggests e.g. that the earth belongs to all of us equally, and that inherited wealth is not earned, that we should all have an equal chance, education etc. there are market anarchist who go on to say that the markets should be completely free, and we all have the right to earn [more] wealth relative to the efforts and skill put into a given field. So anarchism doesn’t always mean that we put everything into the same pot and share it equally, just that our foundations or starting points should be equal. …but it is not an inane battle of the wills, whereby we are all subjugated to one another wills or any such thing. The ego is not a function of its politics imho.

Now to authority; anarchism is not denying other nor the collection of wills [it is not based upon ego’s etc], such that we all end up denying each other to the point of being ourselves denied. That would arrive at zero which would be a tad stupid, and we’d all be walking around directionless like headless chickens. It doesn’t require authority ~ what kind of idiot needs an overlord to tell them what to do! I think the general idea if I may, is that people intelligently apportion out tasks and resources, like farmers to be given more land than factory workers and such. The only denial of will [if we must use redundant terminology] is indeed that in authority, especially top down authority.
if e.g. you run your own business, you don’t need Mr Hitler [or anyone et al] to tell you how to do that. If you work for said boss, you equally don’t need him to be denying you your fair share and to be forcing you into slave or cheap labour, hence you need some kind of governance to stop that in both cases.


If you believe there should and ought to be, universal morals, meanings, purposes, then you are either a religionist or a secular universal transhumanist of an objectivist type caliber like most of the post modern academic trash.

No, If on the other hand, you think the absence of universal, morals, meanings, and purposes is a positive, then you are more than likely a subjectivist, relativist, or an existential [moral] nihilist.

As usual you don’t know shit about nihilism or relativism for that matter.

If you view such absences negative, that makes you a nihilist? Are you fucking kidding me?

Nihil as a word in conjunction with nihilism means nothing or a presence of something’s absence. The nihilist doesn’t view it negative in that it’s a very hallmark of their philosophy. You can’t be this fucking stupid.

The only people that resent the absence of morality or ethics are objectivists, religionists, and stupid idealists.

Seriously, stop calling everything you dislike nihilistic or nihilism because you come across as a jabbering moron.

Sorry, I am not a subscriber to a lot of the popularized anarchist movements of today which I like to refer as pretend political fake anarchists. My understanding of anarchism transcends beyond all that ridiculous bullshit.

First off, nihilism is not a denial of reality, nihilism is the rejection of the objectivists stance on reality as all nihilism is basically the inheritor of the ancient school of skepticism. Objectivism is the fabricating of reality where nihilism in contrast is the deconstruction of objectivism’s fallacious attempts at fabrication. Nihilism doesn’t posit tolerance on anything. That’s an objectivist conception.

Nihilism posits an objective morality? Are you fucking joking? Please tell me that you are. Please tell me that you’re familiar with moral nihilism at least.

Nihilism is a critique of objectivism. It deplores objectivist so called states of mind. Subjectivism and relativism coincides with nihilism. You’ve been hanging out with Satyr for far too long.

The nihilist copes with the absence of morality in the world just fine I’ll have you know. I’m living proof.

Human existence is very finite not infinite. Afterlife? Are you familiar with the whole statement of god being dead?

Alright, let me get this correct here, you guys acknowledge the absence of universal morals yet, attempt to construct them anyways? Congratulations, you’re all objectivists on KT which I’ve been stating all along.

The way you guys act over there having your own subjective principles isn’t enough where you believe everybody else ought to adhere them also. Another objectivist stance.

Yes, I believe in the surrendering to forces of nature because nature is the master of us all not deluded various political factions of other human beings or some fictional abstracted constructed god either. Without nature there is no human beings.

This discussion about nihilism resulted from the question of how nihilism is understood on KT.
How nihilism is understood on KT is more encompassing than the popularised understanding of it.
KT’s understanding of nihilism encompasses the popular understanding and paints a bigger picture in how this popularised understanding of nihilism is just the polar opposite of moral objectivity and thus to be opposed.
It’s similar to a religion being opposed by some anti-religion which declares all inversions of a religion’s teachings to be true as to oppose it. By doing that this particular anti-religion would implicitly affirm the importance of that religion they oppose by making all their thoughts and truths dependent on them, just inverting them.

In the case of nihilism the idea that there could be a moral objectivity is being inverted in moral nihilism.
And this is why the modern nihilist stayed back in his/her mental development, or, there never was much more potential in the first place.

Oh, please…The understanding of nihilism on KT is complete bullshit that outside of that forum nobody on earth even defines the basic tenets of nihilism that way. It’s just complete obfuscated misinformation on the subject.

It’s an anti-nihilism forum? Fine, you’re all a bunch of objectivists and need to start calling yourselves as such.

What kind of a lame reply was that?

An interesting question would be as to why is it called nihilism,
Why not call it inversion of moral objectivity?

Since this moral-objectivity/nihilism-box is not anything new why nihilism?
I think it’s a good choice because what the box provides is escapism for the mind and from what could a mind escape if not what it cannot change by thinking it away - reality. It cannot change reality via thought but it can escape it in thoughts.


That’s an opinion, and one directed at all the different points I made! If you wish to debate our comparative philosophies, you’ll need to try a little harder.
If something is bs, then say exactly why it is ~ otherwise you are not saying anything.


You’re more than welcome to create a subject on the issue to which I’ll debate you. Create a separate thread.

It is most probably true that nobody outside of that forum defines nihilism that way. But there are reasons why nihilism is chosen to be defined differently on KT, and that’s because of how it’s used.

Say a couple of good, church-going, God-abiding folk are having a talk about morals, and Joe tells them that there is no one objectively correct answer to such matters. Instead of proving objective/universal morals or addressing Joe’s arguments, they can just reply something like “Oh, nevermind Joe, he’s a nihilist.”

It’s how I often hear it being used - disparagingly by moral objectivists/universalists to accuse those who disagree with their denial of reality of denying reality. As if there are obvious objective/universal morals, and everybody who denies them is denying something that is very obviously true and real, and those people who deny the reality denial (denying a negation of reality, thus actually affirming it) are called… nihilists. The fact that nihil comes from the Latin ‘nothing’, and that nihilism is also used to denote epistemological/ontological nihilism, which might go as far as to say that nothing is knowable or that reality doesn’t exist, only further serves to contribute to the word ‘nihilist’ being (ab)used by objectivists/universalists as a buzzword to dismiss others by labeling them as simply reality-denying.

This is where KT steps in and fixes this conceptual mess. If nihilism is about denying reality, then it is the moral objectivists/universalists who are guilty of nihilism. If nihilism is about denying reality, then it is those who think reality doesn’t exist who deny reality (no shit) and those who try to present unreality as reality.

Let me try another way of explaining it.

The denotative meaning of nihilist is the common definition, from wikipedia: Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ.ᵻlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ᵻlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical doctrine that suggests the lack of belief in one or more reputedly meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism can also take epistemological or ontological/metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or that reality does not actually exist.
The connotative meaning, aka what people associate with the word nihilist: Reality-denier.

See a problem here? People have been taught that the reality-denying position is the one which suggests lack of belief in objective meaning, purpose, intrinsic value, and morality, which is not the case as I’m sure you’d agree, because absence of objective meaning/purpose/intrinsic value/morality is how reality is.

Inverted moral objectivity? No, my nihilistic moral skepticism denies the existence of morality altogether.

If it doesn’t exist there is nothing to invert.

Except with your analogy moral objectivists and universalists in denying natural reality or realism don’t say there is no reality whatsoever where on the contrary they supplant it all with their objective universal constructed interpretation of reality. So, what you’re saying makes no sense.

The nihilist is the only one [extreme epistemological types] that deny there is any reality whatsoever of course many like myself posit that beyond a physical plane of existence which is the only thing that can be objective the human mind is one entirely based upon subjective experience. [We make our own realities separate from the physical plane in mind.]


I am not an anarchist so I am not going to make a full debate on the subject. My point was that if someone takes the time to reply to the issue in hand, its a little off to then shout it down with an opinion made in a few seconds [I know we all do that lol]. I was only asking you to make a reply or not, or ignore me etc. the debate here concerns the relevance of the wills and wills to anarchism, whereas if I may, anarchists in my experience are especially adverse to such battles ~ that’s kinda the whole idea, to try and get past such idiocy and ego.

Once again, if you want to discuss it further please create another thread. This thread is to address the KT crowd and Satyr.

What they do is say that something which is not-reality is reality (objective/universal morals), while claiming that reality (absence of objective/universal morals) is not real.

Simply, they’re LYING. The reality is that X is untrue. The liars say that the reality is that X is true (they lie), and that everybody who disagrees with them and says that X is untrue (which is the reality of the situation) is a reality-denier.

I honestly don’t know how to simplify it even more, so if you don’t get it this time… sorry. I’m out.