If you believe in meaninglessness of your meaninglessnes then you arrive at contradiction, ie meaning, which puts you in the same boat as
when you say
to
no
as you dont know that your views are meaninglessness crap
as i know mine are
I think Nihilists defending the meaningfulness of Nihilism is funny.
I just don’t like when nihilism is misunderstood, but then again I don’t really expect people with biased/emotional opinions to come to logical conclusions anyway… 
there you go again showing us what a nihhlist gets meaning from ie logic
you say you believe in nothing then tell us you believe in logic – contradiction
Hello ladyjane.
Briefly, nihilism, in my opinion, can only end in contradiction because of meanings. What is meanigless contradicts nothing.
Of course I have yet to find a definition of “meaning” that is universally accepted.
Now to your link:
— To defeat the heirs of the enlightenment with their own weapon i.e. reason itself.
O- There would be no defeat but a reaffirmation, because you still affirm reason even when you use it against itself.
— To reduce all philosophy all science all views to irrational meaningless babble using their own epistemic conditions of truth.
O- This can only be done by a process that is pregnant with meaning, thus sabotaging it’s own enterprise to prove meaniglessness. At best, it sets obstacles to a given epistemology, but does not destroy all meaning. At best it can persuade us of the individuality, particularities, arbitrariness of so-called epistemologies- systems of objective universal meaning-.
— To confound the products of reason by reason itself.
O- If you succeed then you likewise fail, because the confutation is a product itself. He who renounces meaning must remain silent.
— To show that the rational in fact collapses into the irrational.
O- As it must for man is both.
— Cut adrift in meaninglessness we are free to acquire other insights other realizations by transcending reason. Meaning can be reduced to absurdity.
O- This is your agenda, yet, if all of the above is performed and achieved, this last feat is unreachable. Once cast adrift you cannot acquire anything…that would be rational. And without reason, or reliance on reason, there is no “other”, for there is no critical standard to judge if in fact is another or the same. Concepts like “other”, “adquisition”,“realization”,“transcendence” are empty, meanigless. The agenda is then absurd.
— Meaninglessness can be reduced to absurdity but for those who hold meaninglessness as a view, or meaning there is no hope.
O- If there is hope then there is also meaning.
Your own words leave much to be desired.
— nietzsche was a dickhead.
sartre camus also dick heads
existentialism is like wise just another heap of meaningless shit
meaning and meaninglesness
nihilism and anti nihilism all just shit
O- No arguments. Just abuse. How old are you?
— your continual adoption of nihiism is not from reasoned argument
you adopt nihilism to justify your psychology
you need a label to give status to your mental state
your mental state came first then you look around for a label and you found nihilism
all talking will not alter your mental state
because talking never created your mental state
O- Where did you get this? You do know that Nietzsche said much the same…I guess you agree with the “dickhead”.
you problem is thinking dean is talking about some lingusitic philosophies idea of meaning
dean is not talking about meaning at all
he is talking about meaninglessness ie self contradiction
what you call meaning dean say will just be reduced to self contradiction by your logic
so long as you use logic or hold logic to be an epistemic condition of truth your logic will negate itself and send everything ie your meanings into self contradiction
dean is not talking about semantic meaning but logical meaning
meaninglessness =self contradiction
nihlism like every thing else ends in self contradiction ie meaninglessness
using your epistemic tools ie logic against you it is shown your tools ie logic make you end in self contradiction
by you affirming your tools ie logic you are led into meaninglessness
when reason is used against itself you have the paradox that it negates itself ie it ends in self contradiction
irrational means ends in contradiction
again dean does not talk about meaning but only meaninglessness ir self contradiction
all dean is saying is that by using your own epistemic tools ie logic it will be shown that you end in meaninglessness ie self contradiction
note they are your tools not deans so he cant sabatage anything of his
again all dean is showing that by using epistemic YOUR tools your epistemic tools logic collapse all products of your epistemic tools logic into self contradiction
again dean is talking about meaninglessness ie self contradiction not meaning
in a world where everything end in self contradiction via YOUR epistemic tools logic
by transcending your tools you can have other insights
but any meaning ie semantic, metaphysical etc will end in self contradiction ie meaninglessness
if you still make meaninglessness a meaning then there is no hope ie you will be for ever caught in meaninglessness
so long as you use logic or hold logic to be an epistemic condition of truth your logic will negate itself and send everything ie your meanings into self contradiction
Yeah I agree. The confusion is about the use of the term “meaningless”, and because it is used the wrong way…the argument ensues. Unless a particular object is indicated for having the meaning, or lack of, the term is used in the statement as if it is an object itself. It is a concept, which must relate and refer to a particular object. To state that there is “meaning” one must indicate what has that property, or quality, or whatever you want to call it. This necessity forces the term to be meaningless itself…without a proper use.
The nihilists are saying “the universe is not-any-kind-of-isness”, which is ridiculous. Once they realize that meaning is not in the value of a thing but its objective reality, they will be cleansed and take up a rational, stoic, Spinozean attitude toward the universe…one of interested indifference.
I will tell you how nihilism started. It was a reaction to the horribly designed metaphysical philosophies, the “anthropomorphic religions”, which claimed that the universe was desired and created by an intelligent being. This anthropocentric view is a dangerous principle which seduces and instigates man into entering into a kind of psychological game with man and God. It is precisely because this intelligence is “humanized” that people inadvertently attribute to God also their own flaws. God becomes, as Freud put it, a cosmic father figure…and humans discourse with this idea of God as if they were negotiating with their family or peers.
The scientific revolution dealt the death blow to faith. This put man into a peculiar spot, which eventually resulted in his nihilism. First, he was taught to believe an impossible God could exist (rather than reading Spinoza). Next, he has the adequate experiences which demonstrate many of those problems…he experiences the irrationality of something…he becomes more and more skeptical…etc. Finally, in addition to the absurdities he has experienced, the gaining authority of science makes it easier for the person to simply surrender entirely to it. Now they have a theory which explains our origins and purposes, and it is much clearer and… “ethical dilemma” free.
The nihilist is the type who has the sentimentality and emotional obsession with the sense of failure to the extent that he is skeptical with religious conviction. Because he had expected to be pleased by existence, he becomes angry that there is no God to make it that way…even if that means enduring the trials and tests, which, recall, are what we took issue with in the first place.
Now the nihilist becomes frustrated. Now he almost prefers that God did exist because he was conditioned to conceive of God as a figure who had the power to make anything better. Metaphorically speaking, the nihilist can often be the person who is so let down by the death of God that he never recovers. There is no compulsion left to think new radical thoughts.
Nihilism is a neurosis, not a philosophy. Interesting and fun though.
I have a simple formula. Of all the characteristics of the term “meaning”, the one remaining characteristic that is part of every possible definition is “purpose”. What a thing means is what it is for and the “how” of that “using”. In this instance what a thing “meant” would be the sum of its purposes. But it is equally feasible to say that it is possible to make objective statements about a thing’s characteristics without having to have reasons for those characteristics. “This ball is blue” is an existential statement and sound without intent, reason, or purpose for its being true. It “means” that “a ball is blue”. Therefore, the sum total of all particular existential statements that are possible could only be proposed as an existential statement itself, such that the entire universe, itself, is meaningless…because it only means “all the things that mean something”. So when we ask “hey dude, is the universe meaningless”, we must answer “yes, but everything about it is not”.
Any takers?
You must understand that intent only exists where there is awareness. For the entire universe to have a purpose, it must be externally founded on a prior reason…“God’s attempt”…and God’s own consciousness and awareness is like ours- “being-there” and “being-for-itself”. If God existed transcendently, the universe would have to be likened to a toy that a child was messing with…not sure about what might happen, since for God, awareness is fundamentally structured at least as much as our own. What the universe “meant” for God would have to be something he intended it to be…and for this he must be at a distance from it, transcendent to it. This is almost certainly not possible.
your meaningless ends in meaninglessness ie self contradiction
just like every meaning about it does
Ladyjean:
First of all, I don’t think I have a problem. But you do have a problem.
— dean is not talking about meaning at all
he is talking about meaninglessness ie self contradiction
O- Let me say that one of the first principles in philosophy is to clarify words that are ambiguous. He or she cannot talk about meaninglessness, in any idealization, until he also has defined “meaning”, because I cannot understand what is without (less) until what is it (theoretically), with. Self contradiction is a product of meaning. Meaninglessness produces nothing. One cannot talk about meaniglessness nor define meaninglessness, so just the fact that he attempts to talk about it and you describe it as "self-contradiction, to me, shows that you have a problem.
— what you call meaning dean say will just be reduced to self contradiction by your logic
O- My logic? Meaning is not logic, but logic is impossible without meaning. Logic cannot reduce meaning to meaninglessness because it must use meaning, it must have meaning in order to do it, therefore defeating it’s own project to destroy all meaning.
— so long as you use logic or hold logic to be an epistemic condition of truth your logic will negate itself and send everything ie your meanings into self contradiction
O- Maybe your post does not pertain to me at all. I don’t use or secure an “epistemic condition of truth” using logic. “Truth” precedes logic. Logic comes after the belief in truth, in meaning, has been secured.
sorry dean has defined meaninglessness it equals self contradiction
meaning and meaninglessness are not related terms
all dean says is your meaning with end in meaninglessness ie self contradiction so long as you use logic
ladyjane, I am not a nihilist. The briefest of all possible descriptions for my “philosophical” position would be “Marxist”.
I’m just toying with the idea of nihilism in this thread. It really is incomprehensible to me and there are problems everywhere in it. I can understand the pathos of nihilism, which is an attitude and psychological disposition (Nietzsche’s theory regarding this is excellent), but intellectually the position is impossible. It is not a rational position, which is to say like yourself, it crumbles and makes no sense.
First off, go to the 'What is philosophical nihilism?" thread in the Philosophy section. I’ve made some points I wish not to retype.
Nihilists agree. Hell, I agree. Nihilism is self-contradictory and that’s what casts it into infinite regress. It accepts so much, to such a point, that it even accepts the meaninglessness of its own so-called conclusions. But it also accepts that the previous statement is meaningless too.
Your assumption is:
a.) nihilism is a philosophy, full of conclusions, beliefs, and arguments;
b.) nihilists exist; they don’t.
For the former, nihilism is just the ACT OF destroying values. It’s a verb not a noun (I mean that figuratively). Nihilism isn’t so much a bonafide philosophy; rather it is the degree to which other philosophies destroy values. Bringing us to the latter point, nihilists can, for efficiency’s sake, be considered those whom are as nihilistic as humanly possible. So someone who considers himself a nihilist is simply the most extreme form of existentialist. In order for a ‘true nihilist’ to exist, one would have to both breathe and not breathe at the same time, committing to neither action.
Of course, everything i just said is meaningless. 
Nihilism Does not end in contradiction. It beggings that way
Sorry, but as “meaninglessness” is only “meaning” with modifiers added onto it, it is related, to say the least. Of course, you do not want it to be because it destroys that nice refutation you think Dean has achieved. Read again my post. You can have your meaning end in meaninglessness, self-contradiction, because of meaningful propositions. Without meaning, logic is empty. In fact you have no logic, let alone an effective logic that is applicable to any subject.
The sad part of all of this is that I expected an actual argument. You keep repeating what I have already addressed and make no effort to answer my serious objections. I am not surprised because your position is weak and refutable at a most basic philosophical level.
sorry
dean can define a term any way he wants
meaninglessness= self contradiction - just think a new term enters the dictionary
just as Bush can define torture any way he wants
I don’t understand why you are defending your position when you realize that it is meaningless! This is like realizing that you’re a jackass and choosing to wave a flag saying “Look, I’m a jackass”. 
hence death
actually not really , since for the nihilist to exist they too must have fundamental values in order too simply stay alive.
now that is where the contradiction of the nihilist exists , attitude
There is only one justifible way that a nihilist can continue to survive, live, and exist in the face of death–with an open-mind.
Otherwise, die. Nihilism is beautiful from my experiences of it.
nihilism is any thing but beautiful