Nihilism Contradiction? I think not!

Most people say…

" Hey Joker you claim to be a nihilist but you have this grudge against humanity shouting and yelling from the rooftops about the corruption in motion while claiming a relative position, how exactly is this possible without being in a contradiction? "

I won’t lie folks I despise most of humanity’s corruption and betrayal of the natural order of things but at the same time most people misinterpret me by applying dualistic propositions to my form of thinking calling me a untrue nihilist.

It is not that I codemn the corrupt judge taking advantage of innocent people that I loathe due to the fact that like the lion who is taking advantage of the wilderbeasts on the African plains the judge is only acting in accordance of his own predatory instincts.

Nay it is not that I despise but what I really despise is that the oppressed have been stripped all out of any defence,rebellion or fight in them that is a natural right born from that of creation and nature in that they are literally at the mercy of moral idealisms thrown upon them being outside sources of their own individual instincts. Morality and law literally destroys any fight or conflict that evolution thrives on.

The judge does not succeed on his predatory prowless alone but instead claims victory on the account of unsubstantiated moralistic ideals that lays waste to the victim’s chance of natural defence. If upper officials didn’t have any morality there is the strong possibility of the victims claiming victory from any given conflict on their physical strength alone to survive by chance and in such a given scenario had that been the case of our world I imagine things would of evolved much differently than our present conditions.

What I am saying is that I know all forms of corruption in the human world are relative manifestations but I believe that by eliminating the natural right of rebellion,fight, and defence in individuals by moralistic strangleholds I believe human evolution is in a constant dis-service.

( In that lays my hate and my despise for the current situation of the human race. We have destroyed the primal urge of fighting in survival to become slaves of a twisted moral ideal and at the mercy of slaves who worship it.)

( I believe morality needs to be challenged everyday and torn away at in order for individuals of humanity as a whole to evolve.)

I am under the impression that if beggars,victims,the homeless and oppressed were allowed to fight back against their oppressors having the chance to become warriors,revolutionaries, or legends we would be able to cure most of the problems of inequality that we face daily. We would also have such people in the background afterwards to lead humanity in a new hallmark and era of human history altogether.

Moral propositions I believe are the backbone of all current forms of human suffering and at the end of the day the lion atleast has the dignity of letting the wilderbeast defend itself before it goes in for the kill.

Morality shall forever be a plague amongst mankind as long that it remains amongst us and it shall continue to be contrary to natural selection in all ways.

Just so I have this straight, you want to do away with morality in favor of a “evolutionary” view of human behavior and progress? Do you not consider this evolutionary view a morality? You also speak of a “natural order” of things, undoubtedly this natural order is decided by evolution, where those “favored” by evolution will dominate those who come from weaker genetic lines, and you obviously want to maintain this natural order…do you not posit an “ought” upon evolution.? You moralize evolution. Perhaps even offer it teleology? But at the same time you decry morality in general…The contradiction is obvious, or have I misunderstood you?

I would just like to point out the evolutionary defenses of morality as being ‘natural’ to human beings. It can be demonstrated that as long as humans have had a socially understood language structure they have had some ethical code. The idea of a ‘natural’ human nature without recourse to society or ethics seems to be a very poorly substantiated idea. One of the defining characteristics of the species on a behavioural level is advanced socialization and a concept of ethics.

Just seems to concept of human nature of being something like what Hobbes describes needs a lot of evidence before you can build a worldview on it that people will accept.

Bingo - this is just a replacing of religious morality with scientific morality. Both have metaphysics, both involve faith, neither are truly nihilistic. Both sow the seeds of nihilism though…

Joker,
To a true nihilist no course of action would be
preferable to any other, with regard to human affairs, since the
concepts of truth and morality are meaningless.
Confused is much closer to describing your thoughts.

Yes.

No. How could I?

The biological imperative just “Is” supplying a pre-existing order to all things where there is no “ought”.

Once humanity was apart of this pre-existing order that manifested from nature that is and only later did man come to some insane conclusion that he should be exempt from the natural law of the universe creating his own form of existance under a imaginative supplanted ought.

If we went back to a evolutional setting as humankind we would only be going back to the pre-existing order that is and that shall ever be.

I don’t supply a “ought” but instead I ask for the complete destruction and annihilation of its curse.

Ever since the beginning of existance evolution or nature has already implanted intentions,goals, and functions for all species including humanity even though we desperately try to claim that we are exempt.

How can I posit anything if nature already does it for me? All I have to do as a human being is flow with it and be carried away within.

No I don’t.

I posit that evolution and nature is the only thing considered real or right under the existance of things as it is the first law of all that exists.

I do acknowledge a teleology but my envision of it is atheistic and I also understand how the cosmos is indifferent to man with ourselves being insignificant in reality.

I think it is you who has misunderstood me.

Nihilism does not exist.

I don’t understand.

Read it slowly:

Nihilism.

Does.

Not.

Exist.

:slight_smile: I read it but I’m kinda confused how you came to your conclusion.

Could you explain your statement?

It’s a joke.

Nihilism believes in nothing, right? Or better reduced in the non-existence of things, hence a true Nihilist, doesn’t believe in the existence of Nihilism.

I think all nihilists are primitivists at heart who don’t realize that no action of preference would be mankind being animals again.

There is no support of truth or morality at all in my statements. :laughing:

Where did that come from?

I would direct everyone to my big reply to Nihilistic in understanding my position better.

I get it now. ( I was never good at jokes or metaphors ironic I know with my username.)

Language does play many tricks on the human mind that is for sure and personally I see the label as a rejection of the many things that a large majority of human beings take for granted.

I thought this was a non-smoking site!

Joker…

[i]Most people say…

" Hey Joker you claim to be a nihilist but you have this grudge against humanity shouting and yelling from the rooftops about the corruption in motion while claiming a relative position, how exactly is this possible without being in a contradiction? "
[/i]

I wont say that…without a spell checker …I’d have a hard time spelling it.

I’m relaxed with my writing capabilities. Bite me real hard. :stuck_out_tongue:

Joker

If we’re taking a purely evolutionary view of existence, without a god, then whatever develops is part of evolution. It doesn’t make sense for us to say that “this is contrary to evolution”, as evolution is all that there is in terms of describing behavior. Which means, that culture, society, morality ect. are all part of human evolution. In the same way that a Bee colony has a hierarchy, human culture has developed, for itself, as hierarchy based on morality and law. In a similar vein, you speak of the “laws of nature” as if they are a metaphysic that are obligatory but can be broken resulting in immorality. This is nonsense, you are trying to use deduction as science, when science is the art of induction. Or perhaps more correctly, you are using induction to create laws that do not follow from what is observed. Meaning, you are observing nature, coming up with a law, and then calling foul when your law is violated. When infact, if the law is violated, then we must reformulate the law, as we have gotten it wrong. Either way, you are generating a ethic from bad science, or lamenting recent evolutionary changes in favor of something else, which is a morality.

Humanity ignores the biological imperative which is the law of diversity instead choosing to become the sole focus of the earth and cosmos rather needlessly since there is noone to observe us.

[b]Then there is the fact that civilization,society,religion,philosophy and science are all symptoms of a insane unnatural idle out of control imaginative state not to mention the economy that rules our lives is a product of the human mind not that of nature.

Does any of this help you understand things nihilistic?[/b]

If we claim that we are exempt, we claim it because of evolution. This is a matter of ontology v. morality. You are claiming that evolution is our ontological explination(explination of how things developed the way they did), which is fine, but it does not follow from this that it is wrong not to accept evolution as ontology. In fact, you are doing exactly what you are trying to get rid of. You are taking those who do not accept evolution as ontology, a view that according to you, has to be the result of evolution, and claiming that they ought not claim that man ought to be exempt, which is to say that you are denying the evolutionary deveopment that led to “ought to be exempt from evolution”. Which means you are denying your own ontology, and positing a morality, which happens to be exaclty what you attack others for.

If it is a biological imperative then we could not ignore it. This doesn’t make sense at any level, this is bad science, or more appropriately, morality that claims to be science.

Perhaps if we don’t view Science/evolution as ontology, but simply as a useful methodology, this confusion does not arise.

This world is incredible for pulling shit out of its ass in defence.