I don’t understand where you get this thesis, or why it seems to obvious to everyone. I don’t think good is reduceable to healthyness. Aren’t there any actions that you would consider good that are unhealthy. In fact, I don’t think it can be reduced to any simple rule- it would have to be horribly complex.
Good things:
Smokeing a fine cigar (Causes happyness, but is unhealthy)
Patronizeing a Good yet depressing movie (Causes unhappyness, but promotes beauty)
Drinking water (Causes unhappyness, but promotes health)
Philosophizeing (Cuases unhappyness, unhealthyness, dosen’t do a thing for beauty)
Ethics is a big one to figure out. I don’t see how no God leads to a simple or nonexistant ethics- unless your an Epiricist. In which case I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya.
So yeah, please explain that idea to me perhapse we can clear eachothers thinking.
Nihilistic:
Ok, ok, but then you have to consider what rationality really is. Rationality as applies to the situation. I think I can claim that for you the concept of rationality automatically involves not killing a person -though that does sound extremist. Perhaps then, when there is no need to kill? Take these ancient examples of Rome and etc, and even the “modern” revolutions which involved considerable bloodshed. In these events, these so called pockets of variance, there is something deeper and more significant happening than an almost random change of history’s whims. These public executions are, in fact, on the superficial level very irrational and appeal only to animal instincts. But these are the exact same instincts that are being appealed to now with the advent of simulated violence in movies. This is not a revolution in rationalism, though the rational mind does distinguish the difference between reality and falsity, the integeral fact remains that the sating of the senses is seen as a function of the utter irrationality that we condition and, against whatever other intentions we might propose, cherish. To hold these public executions in the French Revolution was unnecessary to anything but a symbolic overthrow of the monarchy; they had already lost. If rationality is making its way into the world, what created the machine gun and the atomic bomb, excessively practical instruments of murder? Or is their use rational? If so, I believe that I have the high ground here (not moral, just farther from the flood waters) and that places your argument that either we are not killing more (which I have inferred, perhaps incorrectly) in a precarious position, or that you are actually argueing that the killing we are doing is more rational than ever before. Spurred on by more rational devices (intelligent computers) but more rational? I suspect, though I am no historian, that the involvement of Germany in World War II was not a rational act but one of animal instincts. Germany! The nation that is renowned for Heidegger, Hegel and Kant! (Tell me pretty please that I got the nationalities right)
Lostguy:
Just because morality without God is at best healthy does not mean that any other acts that are unhealthy or even depressing are bad. I was probably arguing that there is no “right” or “wrong” without the concept of a entity above, beyond and somehow more knowledgeable than us to set them forth as such. But on second thought, I wonder if that was a shallow thought. Maybe, but much of what I consider to be “good” or “bad” is a dictate. And I mean the finger-wagging sort of morality. Maybe I am ensconced in complete nonsense. Hopefully there really is a valid distinction I am drawing here. I think there is.
Actually I had a similiar though this morning. That for ethics to work there has to be something beyond us. I think the mistake we make is that it has to be an agent. Knowledge is a property of agents. So I don’t think there is anything out there that knows the truth, just the world corisponding passively to truth (or at least there could be.)
You’ve made me realize one of my assumtions. I tend to think that ethics, once known, will apply to every action. Between red jello and green jello this is a right choice, if only because one is closer and therefore waste your time.
No, the concept of rationality does NOT automatically NOT involve killing a person. But if EVERYONE was completely rational it seems that it would.
What instinct is this? I would hardly consider chopping peoples head off at the local townsquare, and watching elfs kill orcs appealing to an instinct in the same way.Their is in an inherent difference between actually killing someone for inane reasons, and watching a mock of someone getting killed to fulfill the plot requirements of modern film.
First you need to explain how satisfying the senses is irrational. Because that sounds completely irrational to me. And sounds a little ascetic, which in this thread has been defined as the anti-rational.
Technology made the machine gun, and the atomic bomb…The limiting facet was not our inability to desire destruction and the death of our enemies, but rather technology. Had we had this technology 2000 years earlier, we would have used it.
It’s not like we automatically decided that we were going to attack our enemies with terrible weapons…We had been doing that for all of history. Technology just allowed us to do it a little more effecient.
A move from fighting with bows and swords, to fighting with machine guns, is not a move from the rational to the irrational. It is simply the move from less technology irrationality, to high technology irrationality.
Depends on the situation my friend. As a whole, we could definatley avoid alot of irrationality if no one picked up a gun, but then the irrationality would just be shifted to knives and hand to hand combat. Humans are not yet rational enough to not wage wars. All weapons no matter how advanced or how destructive are and EQUAL testiment to this.
For thousands of years we built up standing armies, and stockpiles of melee weapons, and then we got more advanced…So we built up standing armies with bombs, and napalm…Only recently has the 1st world decided that it is on the whole unacceptable to exercise your military, unless their is a severe threat and/or humanitarian issues. But even that is still on extremely shakey ground.
No, just that killing more is not a result of a move towards irrationality or towards rationality, just a move towards high technological advancements. We didn’t change, our technology did.
Yes, as the subject heading goes, this argument is quickly becoming stale. But rising above that, I bow my head and run the gauntlet of dry rye bread.
There seems to be, underlying what I would call one of your assumptions that technology miraculously changes without human intervention. Clearly this is not the case. We, as the makers of this brutal new technology have the responsibility (or at least those of us who invent, manufacture and use it), the accountability for the creation of such things. It didnt happen by accident, I can guarantee you that. It was instead, rather intentional and rather inevitable that weapons which promote greater slaughter be created. And in turn those who made them have this to answer to:
“Are you creatures really, those who let the blood rush so immeadiately to your heads, those who let religious intolerance and etc govern your actions more rational than you were yesteryear and not instead far less so to not have the decency to call a stop to murdering?” Or even worse, “Are you creatures who create more rationally -for this is an advancement of the mind- not staining the name of rationality in the name of your “progress”?”
And indeed, I think that at the base of my spine (not my rump, my Kundalini, silly) have this feeling backed up by the wars of recent history, that the more you put into man’s hands the more he (generally) screws up. On the other hand, certain enlightened individuals can become more enlightened now than ever before if they can learn from history. I dont think we ever disagreed on the point that a very few intellectuals are more rational now than ever due to the vast storehouse of accumulated knowledge. In that respect I do, in fact concede that we may be moving towards a more rational humanity. But a limited scope of humanity is doing so. The majority of man, trained not in the most important pursuits (and I lump philosophy and religion together in this category -those that define what we are and how we should act) but instead in rote learning and mostly thoughtless acts of creation (and procreation) are not headed in the right direction. There is a certain need at the head of every organization for a cross-trained man -or even woman, (I dont particularly care unless she’s the headmistress type)- to guide things rationally. But that is an ideal that I suppose is only sometimes lived up to. Enough of my babbling, there you have it.
As for me being an ascetic… or was that aesthete? I wouldnt like to be pigeonholed under one school or whatever, I’m far too inexperienced to lay claim to any one coherent set of beliefs. On the other hand, I suspect that the more experienced I get the more I will “cut” and “paste” things together.
I made no such assumptions. I simply pointed out that with the advent of technology, our rationality isn’t inherently changed. It was acceptable to slaughter people before guns, and after guns. We didn’t change, our technology did…
You tried to paint a picture in which, machine guns and technology somehow spawned this grotesque need for killing and mass slaughter…Which I find to be an obvious fallacy. This technology did not create the drive to kill or further the drive to kill, it only allowed the very same drive to be more efficient. Thus we did not change, our technology did.
You would have us believe that since we were able to kill more people with the advent of modern weapons, that means we were becoming less rational. When in all reality, killing people was just as “acceptable” before the modern weapons as after. If we had these weapons in the era’s before we actually had these weapons, we would have gotten the same results.
No it was ascetic…And I wasn’t claiming you were ascetic by any means, simply that denying the pleasure brought on by the senses is…
The best example of a destructive nihilism in a modern film is fight club.
“There is nothing in the world today that cannot become a weapon, and this requires that our understanding of weapons must have an awareness that breaks through all boundaries.” Just think of Hiram Maxim (Sir, when knighted) who amassed an astronomical fortune from the invention of the machine gun! ‘Build a better killing machine and the world will beat path to your door’.
Even in a historical sense the greater the personal wealth and property one controls or possesses the more laws are needed to protect that wealth. Conversely the less one owns the fewer laws are needed for protecting it. In other words the degree of law desired is directly proportional to the wealth in possession. Buisiness’s are getting bigger and richer all the time, many if not most of the bigger buisness’s are richer then most countrys - slave and master morality, will it still live on through and beyond nihilism? i dont know, it appears governments are there for there own ends with the promise of mystical progress, there “Progress” been that of 5,000 new wal-mart’s… Nihilism would destroy the old and unwanted(irrational) and construct the new.
What is the only cure to ratinal nihilism? One word, Distraction! TV, films, work all the things that say everything is OK; the same things that make no sense, lie with grand myths of some end. Once you destroy the values these are all based on you create new values, ones that are themselves equally ascetic. Liberal people denying there morals are attached with any deity or religious ideals is indeed the psychological battlefield with nihilism.
First, I don’t find the knowledge that I lack any and all importance traumatizing. I find it freeing. It means that anything I do amounts to nothing in the grand scheme of things. This means no matter how much I may screw up, it’s ok. It also means I only need to focus any good or ill I do on my own world, on the people and things around me and I need care nothing for comsic significance.
Additionally, nihlism is not inevtiable. I’m an atheist, and I think nihlism is a weakness. If nothing matters, just kill yourself and be done with it. Your life is obviously meaningless and hollow and you’re just compounding your own misery, so be done with it. In addition, you’re taking up valuable space and resources, so you’re just burdening the rest of us.
But the falsification of the claim is this: I like diet coke, and I like hugs, and I like (some) artwork. I like playing video games, I enjoy reading and writing, I like music. I am able to determine values and a purpose for my life. I can decide for myself what is good or ill, and I don’t need anyone to determine this for me. I can appreciate differing opinions, and discussion and input, but in the end, I am the ultimate end of all my determinations.
And my response is: so what? This is the way it is for all of us. I find nothing heart breaking about reality. I’m a realist. Things are the way they are. If it didn’t kill you, you’re fine. Now move on.
And please, don’t bring God into this, much less into morality. We don’t need for morality. God doesn’t determine what’s good or bad. God doesn’t determine right or wrong. I have no reason to believe in God, and even if I do, it’s irrelevent to morality, or the purpose of my life. If God has set the world to work in mode X, then mode X is what we need to deal with. Whatever good or bad we find in mode X, is good or bad. God may have determined how the rules work in some universal sense, but we are the ones who discover what is best for us, what is worst for us, and how to get along within it. God can’t tell me not to kill. Even if he did, I have no reason to believe he’s right. I have to determine this for myself, through experience and reason. Even if God is right, so the hell what? He just happens to understand how the universe works. How bizarre.
The point is, with or without God, we can determine how best to live our lives, how to avoid harm, do and enjoy the good, manage in society, and be moral/good persons. We don’t need God for any of this. Utilitarianism, Kantianism, Hume, etc., none of them require God. Hell, for that matter, Buddhism and Taoism don’t require God. So how in the hell do we find this necessary, or even valid for discussion?
Sorry, that’s my rant. I apologize if I haven’t been responding to the ongoing topic. I read the frist post and snippits of others, and this is just a little spiel I’ve found relevant.
Skybard:
There are some who think that God is a cure-all solution for the great mysteries of the universe, I would like to hear what people think is missing or simplified in this worldview.
however, what basis are you using to declare that there are ways of behaving -even moral ways- without God? Do me a favor here and set out a specific argument so we can grapple with it. As for the two religious examples that you mentioned, buddhism and Taoism both take a sort of approach that makes moralities of “good” and “bad” into very practical things. You do good because good is good for you. But the type of morality that I was considering involved a sort of good that was inherently meaningless or even worse, seemingly bad, such as the near-sacrifice of Isaac. This good was a sort of lamb-to-the-slaughter follow-the-leader mode of behavior that is prominent in the Christian thought I was brought up with. What I would like to see is an argument against that definition of good.
Nihilistic:
I dont say this to be offensive, but I dont think you have carefully read my post. What I said, or tried to say, or should have said, was that it is not necessarily less rational to build these weapons(though it indeed may be), but that the building of something that encourages killing on such a grand scale must either be irrational(which you seem not to agree on), or “rationality” must be called to account.
My picture was gruesome, was it not? These new developments have opened the already latent (as you have said) stores of irrationality to come out. So while it is not a new emotion that leads us to trench warfare, it is a less rational way of solving conflicts than most ancient battles were. besides, even in the so-called pockets of variance where rationality seems to dominate there are such grotesque executions as crucifixions and the afore-mentioned “Games”. time before and after the modern era.
How exactly is nihilism a weakness? Which is weaker, accepting delusions of pupose and grandeur, or accepting the fact that nothing matters?
That doesn’t make sense either. I could easily say “if something matters, just kill yourself and be done with it.”
Everyones life is meaningless and everyone’s life is hollow, denying that does not make it untrue. The only way to begin to overcome or address something like this, is to first recognize it, and then deal with it. Hiding behind “I have purpose to myself” does nothing. I’m not exactly miserable either.
I’m sorry that you see the truth as a burden, that is holding everyone back. That sir, is the weakness
You’re a realist, and yet you deny nihilism for no appearant reason other than, “If nothing matters, then i don’t matter…And I want to matter, therefore it is a fallacy to say nothing matters”.
Exactly, as nietzsche would say once we have given up the desire to think solely in terms of foundations and grounded truths, we may see the value that lies in untruth—for life itself is a tapestry of errors, a tissue of fallible, a wealth of unfounded interpretations.
As he quotes: "A question seems to weigh down our tongues, and yet not want to be uttered: whether one is capable of consciously remaining in untruth, or, if one had to do so, whether death would not be preferable?…. All human life is sunk deep in untruth… If this is true, is there only one way of thought left, with despair as a personal end and a philosophy of destruction as a theoretical end?
I believe that a man’s temperament determines the aftereffect of knowledge; although the aftereffect described above is possible in some natures, I could just as well imagine a different one…"
Why did you choose to completely ignore the rest of my post? You know, the part that actually mattered?
But onto things that are actually important.
I readily admit that nothing has “innate” meaning. And that’s fine. The purpose of life isn’t to find innate meaning. I don’t believe it’s there to find. The purpose of life is to determine for ourselves what has meaning.
For instance, I say, “I enjoy exercise. And therefore, I determine that the purpose of exercise (at least for me) is to grant enjoyment.”
You, being a nihlist, will say, “No. Exercise has no meaning.”
Which is empirically false for me. I note meaning in it. I experience the meaning of it. Indeed, I have determined the meaning. To deny any value, is to deny that I can place value on something. How can I place something that doesn’t exist? But I “can” and “do” place value on various things. I can see how you might deny that “exercise universally has the value of X.” But that’s not what I’m saying.
For instance, why do you do philosophy? Because you enjoy it? Because you find it intriguing? You obviously value truth, or at least it appears to be so. Why? Does truth have innate value? How so? In what way? I’d appreciate some proof of this. Otherwise I have to assume that truth is not unique, but like so many other things, merely has the value we place upon it.
In direct reply:
False. I don’t deny the basis of nihlism in that, “Nothing has meaning in and of itself.” I deny nihlism in that it is empirically and demonstrably false to say that, “I cannot grant meaning, value and purpose to things.”
Odd. I could say the same thing to you, and I believe I would have more basis for it. The truth is that I can determine the value of things, even if they don’t have it innately. Some people like ice cream. Some people don’t. If we aren’t able to determine preferences, how do they come about? Why do they exist? Why are we able to change them? Please, I would sincerely like an explanation of this.
How am I hiding behind something which is merely true?
Let me ask you this: why are you not miserable? Are there things in life which bring you joy? Sorrow? Happiness? Or are you utterly and completely numb? I have a hard time accepting the last. But please, inform me if I am wrong.
It’s interesting how you chose to remove this from the line of thinking.
I can say, “X” has value, and therefore I will retain “X” but “Y” has no value, and therefore “Y” can be discarded. Tell me, do you hold onto your gum after it loses its flavor? If you chew gum for flavor, and it ceases to be flavorful, why keep it?
Dose this make a little more sense?
And please, Nihilistic, don’t assume because I have a single paragraph in the post which is a little quibble, that I am making a personal attack. It seems like that’s how you’re taking this. I have no interest in attacking your person. So don’t assume I’m being combative.
Generally on your first post in a thread you don’t expect the someone to respond to every single part of the post, especially when you don’t address anyone specifically or quote previous posts… If you feel something is important, feel free to bring it up in a nother post later on, but you really cannot criticize me for responding to the parts that I wanted too…
Are you trying to say that consciousness has the ability to posit value onto something? Or that something posits value onto the consciousness? Does the value come from within or without? Seems pretty arbitrary to me.
I recognize the fact that humans try to value things, it is a necessity of human life. But I also recognize that this “valuing” is completely arbitrary and meaningless. It is a failed attempt created by delusions of grandeur. Look at the first part of my definition of Nihilism…
Since when can consciousness do anything but be conscious?
You already have.
It’s all arbirtrary and meaningless.
Valuer: “This has value because I like it”
Me: What the hell does your liking something have to do with it having value?
Valuer: “It has value to me”
Me: Why does it have value to you? Because it releases endorphins in your brain or gives you pleasure? How can chemicals give value? How can pleasure correlate with value? How can consciousness posit anything? You say value is something that you like, but things that you like are completely arbitrary and meaningless.
Valuer “…”
You are working under the assumption that you yourself have value, therefore things that you like also have value. It is circular logic.
“BEcause I like it/Because I said so” is not justification.
I am not miserable because I choose not to be.
Do you have the authority to value? CAn you say that your “values” aren’t completely arbitrary and worthless? WE value all the time, the problem is, that we do it arbitrary and nonsensicaly. And our values are simply delusions.
It doesn’t matter if it’s arbitrary. I think what we have a problem with here is your definition of value. My definition would be something like, “a preference, liking, desire for X.”
And since I experience a desire for something, that desire exist. If I like something, the like exist, even if it’s only a conscious manifestation. Even if it’s arbitrary and meaningless (or at least meaningless to you) it’s irrelvent. All that matters is, “I believe X is worth Y, because of Z.” Or heck, I don’t even need the Z.
And what does that matter? Please, relate this to the rest of the discussion in an interesting way.
And this matters because…?
Or:
Valuer: So the hell what? So they are arbitrary and meaningless in any sense that does not relate to me, or my needs and wants, desires, etc. So the hell what? I favor blue because I favor blue. I need no reason other than that I desire to see the color, and/or that it creates certain emotional responses in me, and/or that it was the color of my first girlfriend’s eyes. Yes, it’s meanigless in any universal, and or concrete sense. So what? I like it. Why do I like it? Because I choose to do so. Why do I choose to do so? It doesn’t matter. I give X the value of Y, and therefore, so far as I am concerned, X has the value of Y. And if that value changes to Z, now the value is Z.
No. Not at all. I only have value if I decide that I have value. If I do not value myself, I have no value to self. And I could consider myself valueless, and still value someone else. This happens often in cases of severe depression. A person will only keep living because a loved one is there, and suicide would cause said person to suffer.
Now, self has no value, but other has value. Why? Because of my will.
Value does not come from my having value. Value comes from the conscious willing of such value. And because I have consciousness, and will, I can will such things to be.
Yes. It is.
I value my life because I choose to do so.
I value cheetos because I choose to do so.
I value the color orange because I choose to do so.
Now, please tell me where our statements differ.
It could also be: I choose to be of a prefernce for Old Spice, because I choose to be of a preference for Old Spice.
Which more along the lines of your original statement.
Yes. Because it is value in relation to my own desires, needs, wants, etc. My liking creates the value, at least for myself.
In some universal and/or concrete sense, no. Nor does it matter. They can be arbitrary, and worthless. So what?
So? Our entire existence could be delusional, yet we go about it just fine. I don’t see the problem here.
The problem we have seems to be that you require value to be grounded in logic, and or universal/concrete in some way. I have no such need. Value can be as arbitrary, nonsensical, even irrational as we create it to be. It doesn’t matter. Value comes merely from the will, from the thought (and the consciousness does think, or at least the thinker does, or however you like to term it). If I will something to be valuable, it is, at least for myself, because I am the ultimate determinant of all things which I value, have preference for, etc.
I’m really wondering what you’re definition of value is. Would you care to elaborate?
I see no major differences between what you are saying and what I am saying, except for the basic attitude of our posts.
Their is something off about the way you describe nihilism…Maybe it was the first few ambiguous posts that biased me against you, or maybe its the way you assert that things have value with the quick and sly “,atleast to me” stuck in after it.
As far as I’m concerned values are arbitrary even to the person that is valuing, they just don’t know it yet.
In the context of nietzsche nihilism I think I would be a nihilistic nihilist(ad infintum)
let me rant. or further expound what you ahve been saying all this while.
nihilism, or nothingness lies at the heart of being. a lack as the foundation of what we can be. and when we die, we become a nothingness.
why then become anything apart from the values one prescribes? hy develop ones essence? why transcend oneself perpectally? why strive ot go over ala zarathustra? for oneself, ones vanity, ones values.
as a hypocritical nihilist, i have none. and yet though with little value to life, i still live on. perhaps because i do not value death either. hence a pathetic being, always trying to climb outta the pit of nihilism to create and establish values. shrinks call this ‘depression’ i call it laziness.
ultimately there is no point as we know, apart from what value we give it and yet no point to giving point value.
seize the moment, hte terrible moment, and yet the moment means nothing.
Attitude of our posts? Well, I find mine a little more playful, but I don’t think that matters.
The “at least to me” isn’t quick or sly. It’s just being honest. I can’t assert values for anyone save myself.
And actually, values are not solely arbitrary, or at least not “absolutely and wholly arbitrary.”
Let me give an example: liking chocolate.
Now, you take a piece of chocolate, and taste it. At least two notable things happen: one, your taste buds pick up the sensation, pass it along to your brain, and your brain interprets this. Secondly, there’s a chemical in chocolate that (though I forget the name) has a mild mood affecting reaction (this is why some people when depressed will eat chocolate: it makes them feel better).
Now, if I have already established grounds that I: 1) value that which tastes good and 2) like being in a a more “positive” mood, I will most likely react to this experience by liking chocolate.
You could say these bases however, at arbitrary in and of themselves. But even if so, that doesn’t change the fact that I have sujectively created criteria for what I will and will not like to eat. Thus, though to a degree they may be arbitrary, in a way they are not. This is similar to how we have crafted objective bases for studying art, literature, etc.
But to a better example, might be out interactions with persons. That is, I have found a liking for let us say, metal, and people who make me laugh. Let me also say that I’ve the preference to not be around people who are loud and obnoxious. Now, let us say I meet two people, and both like metal, but one is funny and the other is loud and obnoxious. Whom do I like? I like the one who has the greater qualities that I have a preference for.
And though the initial valuing (metal, not people who are loud/obnoxious, and people who make me laugh) may be considered subjective and arbitarry, I have at least developed grounds upon which I can build my preferences. But these aren’t even necessarily entirely arbitary. Perhaps the metal is, but if I hang around people who irritate me constantly, I will be in a bad mood, I may encounter conflict and even violence, and we learned as we developed as a species, that unnecessary conflict is bad, and that being in a constant state of defense/attack is bad. So I may simply instively avoid such instances and this has progressed now, to where I avoid people who agitate me.
I realize I’m not getting very in depth, but I don’t think there’s much need. I’m sure you understand the previous. The point is, to a degree you can say such things are more or less arbitrary, but in a certain way they’re not. They’re not grounded in logic or reasoning, or at least not in any greater way than “I like that which tastes good, this tastes good, and therefore I like it.” Granted, this is subjective, and you might say, “Well, why do you like that which tastes good?” And all I can answer is, “Because I do.” And now we’re at the beginning again. All I’m saying is that preferences aren’t “wholly” without basis.
There are two differences we have here.
One: I don’t mind this at all (and apparently you do).
Two: I’m not convinced preferences are “wholly” arbitary.
There is no meaning, therefore there are no rules, and because of that, we are free to choose for ourselves. We can choose our own meaning to life, and that itself brings meaningfulness.
A clear paradox, but nevertheless, I find this meaningful . No offence, but I’ve always considered nihilists to be cowards (I was one myself), they have somewhat stopped a natural logical resonnement in a masochistic place. They are the ones that ultimately hinder their own happiness. One should ask oneself this: There is no meaning. So what?
It still feels good to drink a cold beer while sitting in the sun. It still feels good to get a hug from a friend. These events distinguish themselves from other events in life. If they feel different, that implies a sort of meaning.
What do you think (or feel) about this? Am I too naive, or is there some substance in what I’m saying?
Nihilistic, you propose nihilism to be a future of more rationality. My question is that that isnt natural and therefore is not an inevitability. The rational mind and the emotion mind, in my opinion, are in equal balance, and consequently asceticism too would (and always has) been unavoidable.
Life may have no point, but what does that matter if im emotionally happy and not bothered. Value maybe a illusion, but again does that feeling have any value other than a pleasurable one or not.
. No offence, but I’ve always considered nihilists to be cowards (I was one myself), they have somewhat stopped a natural logical resonnement in a masochistic place. They are the ones that ultimately hinder their own happiness. One should ask oneself this: There is no meaning.