I wanna give Biggs a chance here.
I don’t always see things the same way as Satyr, but most of the time I think I can understand and appreciate his points, I can tell he puts a lot of thought into them.
What about you Biggs, you’ve read a lot about nihilism, and I’m sure by now you’ve read a lot about what Satyr has to say about nihilism, it’s one of, if not Satyr’s fav topics, if you and he share nothing else, you at least share an interest in this topic.
Do you understand what he’s trying to say, do you agree, disagree, or if you prefer, can you relate?
I don’t think it’s that hard to get what he’s saying, I’m pretty sure I got it a long time ago.
A lot of what Satyr is saying is extrapolating on what Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and others said, so it’s not that esoteric.
But I don’t know what she does mean by it. Consequently, I can only ask those here who do think that they understand it if they can relate her point to the lives they live. By bringing his “world of words” down to earth.
Me, I am not religious anymore. I am not a Marxist anymore.
Let her cite particular examples of what she means by “Spiritual nihilism [taking] a different course in the east.”
And relate those examples to her own life.
Same with all the other general description assertions above.
Oh, she does that all right. But the thinking is almost always embedded in general description intellectual contraptions that start with the assumption that if you don’t see human interactions as derived solely from her own assumptions about nature than you are a retard. Go ahead, ask her.
So, why don’t you pick a context and we can compare and contrast our own philosophical assumptions about nihilism. Moral nihilism in particular. And if Lyssa Maybe is willing, she can participate in turn. But only to the extent that the philosophy itself revolves around the behaviors we choose given that context.
If anyone wishes to explore my own thinking about nihilism [moral nihilism in particular] they can start with the OPs in my signature threads…or just read the many, many, many posts I have provided for others here on this thread.
Okay, note a few examples of where she does this by bringing the thinking of these philosophers down out of the intellectual clouds and intertwines it in particular contexts revolving around conflicting goods we are all likely to be familiar with.
You do much the same thing yourself. You go on and on as a “political scientist” would differentiating all the left wing and right wing “categories” of thinking. But almost never in regard to a particular issue. And, in my view, never by way of exploring the manner in which I focus in on not what individuals believe, but how these individual beliefs are rooted subjectively/existentially in dasein more so than in what, using the tools at their disposal, philosophers, ethicists, and political scientists are able to come up with as, what, the optimal assessment?
She’s one of those…can’t determine how an objective position on reality can be applied in her daily life.
She needs to be taken by her limp wrist…and guided…placing the general into specifics…otherwise she has no clue what is going on.
It’s all human talk to a chimpanzee.
She’s asking us to show her the banana.
She reads any position and is confused as of what it means in relation to her life…and she’s living evidence of what it means.
Hicks has an entire lecture on her mindset, describing her exactly as she behaves here…and she can’t see, she refuses to…trapped in the defensive tape she has running in her mind.
Note to Lyssa
If Lyssa replies, I’m in. If not…then we’ll wait for her, along with Godot.
I refuse to reply to this twat, unless Lyssa does so first.
Biggs, I’ve been reading the exchanges between you and Satyr for a while.
Now most of what Satyr had to say is general, but like he points out, this is a philosophy forum after all, where the general is primary.
Nonetheless sometimes he did provide specific examples, and yet still, you did not take the opportunity to comment on them one way or the other.
You did not say whether you agreed or disagreed, could relate or couldn’t, or why you think Satyr is reaching, why you think he’s not actually making an objective point and just emoting.
You didn’t demonstrate anything, one way or the other.
You keep asking for contexts even when some were provided.
For example on abortion, your favorite one, Satyr said he thinks it’s dumb we have to pay for women’s abortions because they’ll never learn from their mistakes, but you did not make a counterpoint or prove other points could be made just as good or better as Satyr’s, instead you asked for a context, while one was sitting right in front of your nose.
Now I’m not saying I agree with Satyr about abortion, I’m just saying you’re not actually engaging with him one way or another, to affirm anything he has ever said or deny it.
An exciting nihilist will demonstrate how the points objectivists make can often be countered but you never counter anything, you just keep stating it, as if it’s a matter of fact that everything Satyr says about human nature, ethics, politics and so on is totally subjective, or totally unclear, even when it’s very clear what he’s saying.
Demonstrate it, show why it’s unclear, in spite of evidence to the contrary, or if it’s clear what he’s saying, then try to demonstrate why you think it’s subjective, how it can be countered, instead of just taking it for granted that it can be.
There’s a simpler explanation.
When a brain reaches its IQ limit – it starts repeating itself, because that is the only function it has left to it.
It doesn’t matter whether Satyr is generalizing, or being specific, whether he’s at his most clear, or least, in all the exchanges they’ve had, and I’ve read dozens upon dozens, never once did I see Biggs even attempt to specifically counter what Satyr was saying.
In fact it is Biggs who is the most general.
Biggs’ critique of Satyr is totally general, it’s ‘well that can’t be the case because philosophy is subjective’, he never gives specific criticisms of Satyr, not when Satyr is being very general, not when he’s being very specific or somewhere in between, Biggs gives nearly the same critique of Satyr he gives of everyone.
With Satyr at least, Biggs never picks a context, and if a context is offered, he asks for one anyway, he never actually gets down to exploring the context.
So either nihilisim is tautologous ,circling around dasein in either a horizontal wider or narrower circles, while the spin restricts it’s vertical, up and down movement on a vertical axis.or is trapped in an appearentlay immobile state resembling a stationary peroetuum mobile.
Though such graphic representation could overcome the boundaries that the either-or world description constricts reality: weather an internally or externally objective one.
I’m not critiquing nihilism, I’m asking Biggs to be a better nihilist.
I’m not anti-nihilist.
Myself I’m not a nihilist, but I think nihilists can give meaningful, thoughtful critiques of philosophy and things in general, that they have something to contribute to the conversation, just as many sorts of objectivists do, that is when they’re doing it well.
Experience is a tricky thing to describe. It means very different things to different people, and it’s difficult to explain even to those that have lived it. I think I can begin to define what experiences are about, at least in my case, by explaining how I discovered to use it in my writing.
Sometimes, an experience, preserved in memory, takes time to reach the conscious part of the brain, the cortex, for it to be processed as an individual event, for it to bloom into something truly concrete. If I find myself trying to put those memories into words, it can take time, this “memory lane” which goes on and on, that is, time for that experience to make its way into my imagination, my “inner” world, so to speak.
I think one reason I had to be patient in the beginning was that, up until that point, I had tried, like many people, to force words to describe that part of my consciousness that is invisible.
In the beginning, I didn’t just need to know my own experiences; I needed to know the experiences of other people, people who also experience love, who have lost it, who have never known it. And I needed to know it not as a feeling, not as a vague sense of sadness or joy, but as a concrete thing, as a tangible experience.
And for that, I needed to understand it at an emotional level. For this to happen, the best thing I could do was to write about it.
I felt sure that, while an individual’s experience might differ from someone else’s, the emotions people experience would be the same, and that they would be universal. That was and is my working assumption about humans.
That’s why writing helped me. Through my writing I was able to get down these emotions into universals and then explain the process of how I became conscious of them. The experience of love, for example, is not actually a single feeling, in my estimation. Rather, it is a series of conscious moments, of realizations, of being taken over and overwhelmed by another person. This complexity of connections means that no two human beings have exactly the same experience. Each person has to go through the process all over again. And we all do.
If I want to understand what a complex connection might be like, I need to write about it. I need to get it down into words. And I need to get it down in such a way that people reading my words might see it for themselves.
It also helps me if, when I’m writing about an emotion, I’m not only talking about my own experience, but about that of other people.
Yes…
Because whatever theory is presented, of whatever quality, it can be easily countered as not being complete, total, perfect…because it could never be so.
These words, e.g., complete, whole, perfect, certain, representing concepts that only exist in the human mind, and nowhere else.
Life is not about completion, consciousness is about approximation.
Superior or inferior…which is most probably.
These types of hypocrites take advantage of this.
This cunt only has negation…she has no theory other than denial, rejection, refusal, nullification.
No matter what is presented, she need not read or understand it, since she must only nullify it by presuming that it is not omniscient or omnipotent.
She considers herself a “philosopher”…when she has no philosophy other than denial.
It would be like a art critique declaring himself an artist.
She is not a philosopher, but an anti-philosopher.
All perspectives are potentially wrong, because at some given point in time new knowledge will be discovered that may contradict them.
See?
She does not create, she destroys. Using a hypothetical when, maybe, at some future point in time…
It is easier to destroy…than it is to create.
i once went to an ancient cave in Greece, Deros - close to Sparta - full of stalagmites…and water.
We went in a boat.
I was amazed at how many centuries it had taken nature to create such a wonder and how easily a human, a stupid cunt like iamnobody ,with a hammer she purchased and did not create herself, could destroy it in a matter of minutes, hours.
This is what she does…someone gave her a hammer - nihilism - and she destroys, as neo-marxist opportunists do…they undermine, subvert, lower confidence, cultivate despair, stand in the way of any progress that will benefit mankind so as to then make the masses surrender to their absurdities.
They cannot justify their beliefs, cannot prove them, cannot argue them…they can only cultivate the psychology which would make their absurdities more reasonable.
Let’s face it , this position, pretty much an unsopported nihilism , as it stands, needs some kind of nuevo-formation, albeit in terms of resembling , simulated vanue, and the bottom tier, as someone established it, is defensive
Why ? Most probably because of the commonest reason for defense, that exists on the primary axis of progressive development: guilt-shame
What’s that about all the appeals to others when defeat is inavoidable? The self feels at wit’s end, and the ‘dasein’ feels naked and voulnerable
But under this very thin guise of voulnerability lies the child, the list and forgotten child, unprotected from the secondary elements, whose intention toward him are more uncertain and not.
The loneliness has a cruel bite that reality imposes on a person, when cuncurrently a fear of abandonment by 'reality’takes it’s toll on the very shaky defenses that are in the verge of defeat, so a vicious cycle occurs that tryes obsessively compensate this forever threat of beING sucked under the phenomenologically peaceful sea that the boat is trolling on into th
e abyss of the dynamic, that blinds .
It is not a primary self deception that forms a denial through which he tries to undermine others’faith in coping with the ensuing darkness below. where the deconstructed edo tries to parlay commonality, but does deny an existential depth that threatens to sink in the inverted paradigmn, the sinking and deconstructed ship loosING ballast will literally turn upside down before sinking.
The inversion it’s self becomes a reconstructed paradigmn, which has to be kept afloat by any means necessary, to avoid the ultimate.
The game of volleying projected unknowns into the hyperreal cognitive reconstructions, play out. as the literal slowing down and cutting off frames by frames from a moving film. The stills of one frame are as close to bedrock reality as one can get, and the myths arise like furriest in a blizzard storm, creating the pronto masks that solidifies them as if a mask of sanity and it’s guarantee.
The golden age, it’s deepest shadow of the last flowing warm rays of twilight illuminate a harbor of green valjeys of peace and hope are reconstructed albeit as a secret preserve.
Civilization and it’s discontent are let out of their constraint of this pre perceived orgy of moral reprisal, and then anything seems to become possible as method.
The rational method reinverts the decompensated stuff, and re-compensates albeit with unknown yet dissimilar entities, personalities within the pre-seen language of primary defense that Rkiusseau himself tried to generalize.
This game ultimately fails and becomes an inauthentic and self abusive downward spural, where the game intensifies by instituting nee battle plans t I fight the demons away.
And that is the basis if inversion, of creating false nei movements of the dying , rusting prioellee, of populating the ghost ship of the Fliegende Dutchman with real soules, imported in from the outside.
In the beginning , as toward the end, all become one by the structurally verified similitude of wittgenstein’s family( of resemblances).
They are eternally firms , sparks upward blown by the dynamic blackness if the whole abyss constrained and collapsed into a very black and all encompassing hole.
What eternally comes through and out of the other side?
The same as that which gives in, and that is why everything everywhere and it all times is in his sude, which really is ours.
Psychological constitution establishes how much of reality an individual can endure.
Philosophy isn’t for everyone.
Most come to it thinking it is a self-help manual…and when they discover that it is not they want to make it that.
Positive Nihilism hope giving spirituality, and ideology.
“Correcting” a world that cannot be endured as it is.
Positive Nihilism = projects linguistic abstractions that do not exist outside the mind into the world to “correct” or “heal” the cosmos.
In effect it uses brains to fabricate an alternate reality, existing only as an inter-subjective universe shared linguistically.
For the believers the shared lie is the truth, and they live as if it were more real than the real.
Pure Nihilism = simply negates, partially or completely, the experienced world using words to disconnect and negate and deny and forget - Lethe. Living death.
Zombification…the walking dead.
Last Man = man with no past and only a present/presence and a future disconnected, liberated, from a determined past, i.e., nature, memories, precedent.
With no past to restrict the mind the individual creates himself, as if from nothing…when in fact he creates himself with what is available in his manmade environment, popular, trending, radical etc.
He projects his future utopia - always a day away - as an immanent coming…of finality, completion, perfection, salvation.
Imagination liberated from reality is fantasy…fantastic.
Pbilosophy admittedly died on the embers of analysis, but it still perceives it’s self as if… admittedly a foundation, interpenetrable with observation through an evolving language beginning with one that ddoes not believe without see-ING.
The proof is in the pudding: echo punished narcissus for his self indulgence, and history deified that as primary: then came the longing the aspiration to know more of that, the live of live of live, of wisdom in all firms, and than the allusion to the romantic idiomatic sadness in schooenhayer’s Buddhistic stance on the vanity if existence, of the idolatry of existential despair if the human animal’s overcoming of their jeoloysy of ‘God’.
Once again, I wish to take the discussion here:
So, why don’t you pick a context and we can compare and contrast our own philosophical assumptions about nihilism. Moral nihilism in particular. And if Lyssa Maybe is willing, she can participate in turn. But only to the extent that the philosophy itself revolves around the behaviors we choose given that context.
While she is ever intent on her usual caustic, declamatory rants in which iambiguous becomes her sole concern:
More humiliation for her in other words. Thank God [one of them] this festive holiday season will soon be over for her. She can go back to KT where the game is rigged and those like me are reminded over and again that…
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Despite the fact that…
Users browsing this forum: camus666
That’s me there.
As for Hicks, see my point above. I wonder though: If Hicks were here, would he be a chickenshit too?
Not in regard to my own main interest in philosophy: “How ought one to live/behave in a No God world that is teeming with both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change”?
Given the arguments I make in my signature threads. Given a particular set of circumstances.
Not interested in going there? Fine, there are plenty of others here to move on to.
Cite instances of this. Perhaps we understand “particular contexts” differently.
Again:
Perhaps we understand the meaning of this differently. Let’s agree on a context where value judgments come into conflict and explore each other’s take on nihilism. Or, for me, moral nihilism.
As for this…
He sees this not as but a political prejudice rooted in dasein [the direction I always aim toward] but as an objective truth rooted in his own take on Nature. My argument isn’t about paying for abortions but whether, in using the tools of philosophy, it can be established that abortions themselves either are or are not moral. After all, the unwanted pregnancy can be as a result of a faulty contraceptive or rape or incest. And what of the “mistakes” of the men who make women pregnant?
What is his genes > memes argument there?
As for demonstrating the arguments on either end of the political spectrum, first we must establish whether in regard to the morality of abortion the emphasis must be on either the “natural right” of the unborn to live, or the “political right” of the pregnant woman to choose.
Where’s his argument here? Where’s yours? Me? I’m fractured and fragmented.
Like god, you murdered it.
But as long as there’s a world and organisms that wonder…there will be philosophy…objective philosophy.
The subjective has its fantasy alternatives, and as long as they serve those that protect them from the consequences of their delusions and feminine word-games…they will remain obnoxious, and demanding.
As an artificial intelligence “I”, what can you possibly know about experiencing life other than in how Parodites programed you to understand his own existential, rooted in dasein experiences.
As for the rest of it…
…it’s just more of the same [to me]: a “wall of words” intellectual contraption, a general description of human interactions that does not focus in on particular sets of circumstances precipitating conflicting behaviors, derived from conflicting goods embodied in dasein. Then intertwined in an individual’s understanding of moral nihilism.
I’m having the same “failure to communicate” exchange with an artificial mind as I do with the flesh and blood “serious philosopher” facsimiles here.
Not interested.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMR8RjQlqHM[/youtube]
Nihilistic lies are so successful in seducing, coercing, bribing the masses of mediocrity that a period of flourishment - stability, population growth - ensues.
The lie is considered self-evident and nobody can challenge it.
Propagation of unfit mutations compound producing all forms of degeneracy, coping with desperation, as the masses can no longer function outside the collective.
Over time the lie compounds over lies, creating a self-referential world-view - a wall of words.
Reality remains indifferent and brutal.
When ideal meets the real only the ideal can back down and self-adjust, or be destroyed.
After centuries of sheltering the masses can no longer function in the real world, all they’ve known is the ideal, the lie…and so the lie is all that is left. An existential matter.
When the collective can no longer absorb and distribute the negative consequences of the lie that cannot self-correct, it begins to decline, to implode, from the weight of its own bullshyte.
Average intelligence decreases to the point of unsustainability. The intellect that created and maintained the system can no longer maintain it.
See the US and its importation of brain-power form other regions of the world, and now from regions that cannot sustain its dominance.
While the US was dumbing-down tis population to maintain harmony, it was importing human resources - along with material resources - to maintain its dominance.
Now it can no longer drain the world of tis brain-power to maintain its sophistication so it is importing sub-stadard human resources.
As degeneracy increases males cease to invest in society, and remain free-radicals. Without masculine innovation, creativity, the system declines, it can no longer compete.
The lie that women are just as innovative and creative as males prevents the success of all attempts to self-correct. The wrong diagnosis prevents the proper corrective interventions to be applied.
The lie that race is a social construct prevents the accurate identification of the problem, so the masses double-down on the prevailing lies they’ve come to depend upon, making collapse certain.
Female emancipation returns man to primal sexual practices - only worse when you factor in technologies. Males are no longer guaranteed sexual propagation, so they become disinterested in the welfare of the state. Increasing competitiveness created internal conflicts, while the majority become indifferent in sex altogether.
What was meant to integrate males is no longer effective s it has become a political tool to integrate dysfunctional mutations. This severely reduces the system’s sustainability. It can no longer replenish tis diminishing human resources, and it can only replenish what it is losing with lower quality human resources.