Having read through a fair sample of Jokers posts, I’m not sure where I stand on his philosophies. Part of me agrees with him but another part doesn’t. I think I generally agree with the notion that the government or the “state” is in the business of fabricating ideologies for the masses, the purpose being to keep them subdued and under control. What I don’t agree on is the vibe of militarism and violent leanings I sense from Joker as the road to pursue in response to this state of affairs.
The question I can’t answer is this: Joker’s main attack seems to be that if these ideologies are utter fabiracations, and especially if the ideologies are moral in their main theme, then we can do away with morality and this is the first step towards self-empowerment. But then why should the individual do anything? Why does anything matter anymore? I’m inclined to think that the best course of action, after you’ve done away with morality and all ideologies, is to lay back and watch the world go by without a care in the world - much like a Buddhist might do. Instead, Joker seems hellbent on revolt against and violent disolution of the establishment, almost to the point of welcoming anarchy wholeheartedly. At least, this is the impression I get. I could be wrong in this interpretation, and I hope Joker will correct me if I am, but if I may go on with this, the crux of the problem, as I see it, is that once one has done away with morality, one must also do away with words like “should” and “matter” and the like. So it makes no sense to say that one “should” revolt against the government, or that one’s state of complacency “matters”.
I’m inclined to say that if I’m comfortable with my life and I’m choosing it by my own free will, then who cares if the state is making up all the rules by which I must live? Who cares if I could be “more free” (whatever that means)? I actually like living in a society with a certain degree of order, with some predictability.
So again, just to be clear, my main point of confusion with Joker’s philosophy is if we’re doing away with morality and state fabricated ideologies in general, then why does it matter what I do in response to this?
At that point, you’re free. You can do whatever you want. Embrace your will to power and the ‘strong’ will take over the world.
Though it’s debatable how the ‘strong’ exist now in the world as the elite… There’s more games at work than one might originally think, thanks to the delusions of morality.
Joker seems to dismiss everything leaving himself with no ground to make any further assertions. And yet he does make further assertions… about moral shoulds, ethical shoulds, and government shoulds. I accept nihilism in the sense of there being no objective meaning, but I recognize that value judgements (how to live)can not arise out of this statement and I fall back on justifying created meaning as best I can through self consistancy and seemingly self evident maxims.
Well said. The nihilist falls victim to his own incoherency. To avoid hypocrisy, the nihilist must positnothing. To me the nihilist has 3 options:
(1) Resort to complete quietism and silence. Quit Philosophy. If there is no intrinsic meaning to anything why waste breath and time? This could also mean suicide as the logical option, since all life is devoid of meaning and value.
(2) Simply deconstruct the arguments of others. Live parasitically and show how other people’s beliefs are hypocrytical and self-contradictory. Yet, be careful not to posit anything in the meantime, as this would lead to a betrayal of the nihilistic outlook. Joker has failed time and time again in this by positing universal values such as “survival” and “power”.
(3) Transcend nihilism through a creative outlook. This could mean an existentialism, a deification of the absurd, a Rortean pragmatism. If life must go on in a meaningless universe, why not shape the world aesthetically? However this would be an abandonment of nihilism, much like the growing up.
Individuals do things because they can and because they will it.
People give meaning to things because they can and because they will it.
They do this not because there is some “true” reality to look out for or not because they are obligated to do anything but instead they do things out of sheer will alone.
If you study the world like I have you will find little “reasoning” in the world and more use of the power to will.
That is what I basically do beyond these internet conversations.
I go hiking,fishing, foraging and hunting in the hills or woods doing basically what I please.
The reason I was gone for so long was because I was spending the night in the woods tracking some deer.
Indeed I do because to me institutions, morals , laws and whole nation state governments are the enemy of my will.
They are the entities that try to restrain my becoming.
They try to restrain my instinct, will, emotions and primordial urges with their caricatures,fictions or pretensions.
They do this not just to me but to everyone.
Whether this matters to the rest of the world or not, I myself care not as such things deeply matter to me and as far as I am concerned that is all that matters.
Why should I settle for less then what I desire? Why should I settle for a limited order?
Why should I settle for a meager existence while everyone around me exploits my labors?
I shall not settle for less than what I desire and I shall not settle for slavery or other people’s whims.
Why not welcome anarchy?
Precisely. And once we dispose of those words you have limitless unrestrained freedom filled with all the powers of creation and destruction.
You have a existence with no mental limitations and bindings.
In such a existence one takes what they want and ones does whatever they want when they want to.
It makes sense to the individual especially if they see institutions and the government as harborers of slavery or as a obstruction to their will to freedom.
Individualism constantly revolves around relative circumstances and positions since all people are different therefore if a individual perceives institutions and governments as harmful to others or themselves in their own mind they are right to revolt against such measures out of self preservation.
There is reasoning when one describes all governments as monopolies.
But what if you aren’t comfortable?
What if many around you seek to make your life very uncomfortable by trying to exploit you? What then?
Do you take their intolerance by doing nothing or do you revolt?
I care for myself.
I am naturally greedy and needy.
Nothing matters in a objective sense of the universe however if one chooses to revolt for their own self preservation or their own personal greed in vanity there is no objective stance that says they cannot.
Limitless freedom has always been my goal in discussing freedom.
Today’s freedom spoken by morality is one of state limitation or limited freedoms where destruction is feared, defamed and is often enough segragated from the public by moral overtures.
The limitless freedom I seek is one without restraint or limits where all the sources of creation and destruction are at one with each other where nothing is segragated in that there is only conquest in survival, success or defeat.
Your response to my post makes sense. I just wasn’t clear as to whether you thought this crusade against the state was a personal/selfish thing on your part or you expected everyone to agree with you - that is, that we should all join in on your rebellion.
There’s a couple of your comments I’ll respond to:
Well, if we’re talking about individual goals, then I don’t see violence and militarism being a very promising one for myself. I’ll probably just land in jail or something dreadful will happen to me.
Because then I’ll get beat up every day and have my lunch money stolen
I’d revolt if it was feasible. Again, this has to do with personal circumstances. Before I revolt, I’d have to ask myself whether I can revolt, and if so, would revolting actually bring comfort back into my life. Under a lot of circumstances, revolting would just make things worse.
Would I revolt if my neighbor was being a nuisance? Sure I would. I’d take legal recourse.
Would I revolt if my boss was an asshole and treated me like shit? Maybe. It all depends though. Would I be able to get a better job with a more friendly boss? Would quiting look good on my resume? Can I afford to quit right now? These things affect my decision.
Would I revolt if a tyrannical government was oppressing me? Are you kidding? Hell, no! I don’t want to get lynched, and probably tortured first. I’m way better off just shutting up and keeping a low profile…
On the other hand, if I had an army of fed-up citizens with torches and pitch forks, well organized and prepared with a plan for replacing the current establishment with one better suited to our needs (or my needs), then sure I’d join the ranks and revolt.
It is a personal selfish egotistical thing on my part only. Sometimes I think to myself that I would like it if other people were like myself but at the same time I am not sure if that could ever be feasible or even possible especially in this age.
At that point I just accept the reality that my perception is a minority and that there is nothing that can be done.
My basic position is that I’m against interference of government, morality, legislation and instititutions in all activities of life.
I see no absolute reason, universal right or necessity for their interference and I also see nothing sacred, benign even virtuous about their activities.
In another thread I stated how chaos in anarchy exists in about the same amount equally in civilization.
You might want to check that out.
So it then becomes your word against mine sort of thing, huh?
I am one of those people who would gladly embrace death before slavery at whatever cost or circumstance.
I would fight first of course before dying however.
gib, I think many of your questions go back to the types of general ongoing challenges to nihilism that just fail. They still revolve around “why should you do this?”
Nihilism is slippery. It incubates itself from all arguments because there just will NOT be anytime soon some sudden gift from the heavens that shows. “Oh! This is why life should matter!” That’s why “the meaning if life” is considered such an important question. Nihilism also imprisons itself. (You can call it freedom if you will. They’re both abstract enough to not matter which you choose.) As a nihilist you must REMAIN in your context of saying it doesn’t matter, and you can’t revert to a conviction that there’s something that has to happen. It’s the only real justification that nihilists have. I think I’ve caught joker occasionally in one of these reversions. The world is shit. So should you blow up buildings and kill the state? No. Because you said it doesn’t matter. But then you could. Because you said it doesn’t matter.
Should I hump your leg today or read a book? It doesn’t matter!
Should I try to make the world a better place, whatever that may entail? It doesn’t matter.
Amazingly, I find myself in strong agreement to much of what joker states- but from a perspective of moral convictions (human “inventions” if you will). To ground myself in an ethical construct, if for nothing else- mere sanity. Mind you, I play a vicious plee of unorthodox ethic. I don’t say that life doesn’t matter. I say that people in the end don’t matter. Happy lives are great. But our existence is better to extinguish sooner or later.
Joker’s vision works to justify raping a woman or two for play. Stabbing people. Smashing things. There’s only a specific thread of these that I strongly disagree with. (gee, it’s hard by now to guess which from my posts)
In the case against joker’s position- I think the abominations of humanity (which convinces me more that we may as well be destroyed) are often people whom start out the same way. “It doesn’t matter. Well what do I do now.”
In the case for joker’s position- many moralists stand to be much more dangerous than the average nihilist. I don’t picture a nihilist just one day getting up and saying “I think I’ll strap a bomb to my chest and blow myself up to destroy some vague idea of a target.” Or “Someone forced me to do it, because they use people I care much about as blackmail.”
In fact it’s a strong moralist that I see driven to do all these things- stabbing people, smashing things . . . because they reinforce it with a “have to.”
He John Zerzan’s away technology. I Gene Roddenberry up technology. He downplays feminist empowerment. I play up women-prioritized vigilanteism. He proposes an optimal state for humanity. I propose a null state for humanity. He hates hierarchy. I hate our chosen sort of hierarchy.
It’s a shame that our opposition may never allow us to co-operate to achieve the same things, even when we stand to possibly commit just about all the same actions.
Also: I don’t think buddhism could in any way be brought synonymous to nihilism. Yes, they agree about “things just being” rather than evil. But buddhists still have doctrine. There are still “right speach. Right breath. Right act” and so on. You are, essentially, much safer around a buddhist than just about any hard moralist or nihilist.
That’s very true. This is where I think nihilism earns its greatest appeal.
True, but I think the Buddhists are making the same error in upholding their doctrine as the nihilists are theirs. Both philosophies speak against attaching one’s self to any doctrine whatsoever.
