nihilism

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

I should start charging.

He meant ipso, not ipod.

ipso facto: by that very fact or act : as an inevitable result

[Ben_JS]

@HumAnIze

Why would meaning ITSELF need to be “objective”? I am not asking if or why some people might want to seek an “objective” meaning, so called. I am not even sure exactly what is supposed to be meant by the term ‘objective meaning’.

Meaning, in the regard I was speaking, was to the question:
Why ought I exist? What should I being doing with my existence?
Meaning for one’s life.

With this context in mind,
objective meaning would represent a purpose for one’s existence -
that isn’t rooted in one’s own subjective preferences.

I believe there is no anchor beyond personal preferences,
to root one’s life meaning to.

A religious person may very well answer - ‘God’s will’.
‘Whatever God declares, is the best and most fundamental compass that I ought follow’.

I hope this clarifies your question.

@HumAnIze

Sometimes you need to have an understanding of what is going to come later in order to make the foundation properly. In fact that is often the case. People who build buildings already understand the entirety of the building before they lay the foundation. And philosophy is all about this kind of UNDERSTANDING.

And one wouldn’t want invest in building one’s life meaning on sand, if they wanted it to be sturdy.
Thus, they analyze their foundations and their building plans alike.

Keeping in context,
anchoring one’s life meaning to something imaginary [God imo],
sets one up to guide their life for the pursuit of a heaven,
which never comes.
One would sacrifice their life in servitude… to nothing.
Sounds rough.

The foundation that I built upon,
is that broader reality has no concern for us.
We’ve got ourselves alone - life has to have it’s own back.
There aren’t wider forces with our interests at heart.
Play your cards as best you see it.

@HumAnIze

Yes we try to understand, explain and sometimes convince others about why something is or is not in the best interest of themselves or another person. That is basic to moral consideration. I mean that is at the very basic level of it. So what are you saying exactly? I mean what is the point you are trying to make?

That it’s possible two people will rationally disagree and there’s no way to reconcile it, or appeal to more fundamental truths.
If someone says, ‘It’s my life. Fuck all y’all. I’m getting mine and I don’t care who foots the bill.’
If they’re willing to face whatever threats you may lob at them, there’s no way to convince them otherwise.
And there’s no rational argument you can make, which renders their position irrational.
So if that was some objective anchor by which all could be evaluated,
then it shouldn’t result in multiple mutually exclusive answers.
The only way to get something bordering on objective,
is to say something or broad and fuzzy that it loses it’s functional utility.
‘People ought act towards their preferences / interests’ — ok, so now what? This doesn’t resolve many questions.

@HumAnIze

I already said nihilists were operating within meaning, their own nihilism is meaningful to themselves for example. Certainly nihilists are searching for meaning in some ways while at the same time attempting to subvert and destroy it in other ways.

Not all forms of nihilism are contradictory to personal meaning.
There are claims contrary to the beliefs of nihilists,
but one needn’t want to destroy the opposing claim,
more fundamentally - one would be expected to disagree with the opposing claim.
That alone can suffice.

[HumAnIze]

@Ben JS

@HumAnIze

Why would meaning ITSELF need to be “objective”? I am not asking if or why some people might want to seek an “objective” meaning, so called. I am not even sure exactly what is supposed to be meant by the term ‘objective meaning’.

Meaning, in the regard I was speaking, was to the question:
Why ought I exist? What should I being doing with my existence?
Meaning for one’s life.

That’s just meaning. Every meaning refers to you. Since TO YOU it is “a meaning”. Truism moments.

Still haven’t answered my question though.

With this context in mind,
objective meaning would represent a purpose for one’s existence -
that isn’t rooted in one’s own subjective preferences.

Where do you think your subjective preferences come from? Some random vacuum or void absent “objective reality”?

Geez, you buddhist new agey types are a real trip. It’s a wonder to need to keep re-experiencing every thing post you make just how much you hate yourself.

I believe there is no anchor beyond personal preferences,
to root one’s life meaning to.

Good luck “rooting” your “personal preferences” in something other than OBJECTIVE REALITY beyond yourself. Egoist.

A religious person may very well answer - ‘God’s will’.
‘Whatever God declares, is the best and most fundamental compass that I ought follow’.

I hope this clarifies your question.

Not at all, but thanks for playing.

@HumAnIze

Sometimes you need to have an understanding of what is going to come later in order to make the foundation properly. In fact that is often the case. People who build buildings already understand the entirety of the building before they lay the foundation. And philosophy is all about this kind of UNDERSTANDING.

And one wouldn’t want invest in building one’s life meaning on sand, if they wanted it to be sturdy.
Thus, they analyze their foundations and their building plans alike.

Keeping in context,
anchoring one’s life meaning to something imaginary [God imo],
sets one up to guide their life for the pursuit of a heaven,
which never comes.
One would sacrifice their life in servitude… to nothing.
Sounds rough.

In servitude to the truth, to reality itself. Which is what is automatically disclosed when you center your attention on meaning as such. Which you are still a long way away from.

God is an image, a focal point, an IDEA that is able to guide you to greater truths beyond just your own little selfish corner of the universe. Which selfish little corner you are still stuck in. But that’s ok, so are 99% of all the other humans on this planet.

You decry the “imaginary” and then turn around and claim some kind of isolated, vacuum-like causa sui “subjective preferences”, as if you were some kind of divine alien spawned instantly into existence with zero contact or history tied into that existence. Yeah, no. This is getting boring so please try to pay attention. I can’t hold your hand all day, and I’m sure not going to fan those primadonna egoism flames you are demonstrating. Yikes.

The foundation that I built upon,
is that broader reality has no concern for us.

Speak for yourself. Not everyone is willfully trapping themselves in their own pet delusions at the expense of the truth.

We’ve got ourselves alone - life has to have it’s own back.
There aren’t wider forces with our interests at heart.
Play your cards as best you see it.

Great job, you’ve entirely replaced philosophy and truth-seeking for a meme-ish new agey platitude and coping mechanism. Cheers.

Why am I still here entertaining your narcissism? Did they run out of alcohol in all of North America? Apparently so.

@HumAnIze

Yes we try to understand, explain and sometimes convince others about why something is or is not in the best interest of themselves or another person. That is basic to moral consideration. I mean that is at the very basic level of it. So what are you saying exactly? I mean what is the point you are trying to make?

That it’s possible two people will rationally disagree and there’s no way to reconcile it, or appeal to more fundamental truths.

False. If there is no way to reconcile then one of those two people is just a retard.

If someone says, ‘It’s my life. Fuck all y’all. I’m getting mine and I don’t care who foots the bill.’
If they’re willing to face whatever threats you may lob at them, there’s no way to convince them otherwise.

No shit. Dumb animals be like. Speaking of which…

And there’s no rational argument you can make, which renders their position irrational.

Yeah there are plenty of rational arguments, but you need to be discoursing with someone capable of intellectual reason in order for them to understand what you’re saying. So yeah, no. Usually not gonna happen.

Stupidity and willful ignorance is usually a deliberate tactic to disempower one’s ‘enemies’ from being able to use anything like truth, reality or reason as a way to show you how you’re wrong. Make yourself TOO STUPID to even be theoretically capable of being convinced of truths which you happen in this particular moment not to like. And so on and so on. Again, why am I still here?

So if that was some objective anchor by which all could be evaluated,
then it shouldn’t result in multiple mutually exclusive answers.

Yes it would, because reality consists of multiple beings who are mutually exclusive to each other in many ways. In case you didn’t notice it we happen to all live in a world with finite resources. We infringe upon each other necessarily. Hence the natural evolution of things like sociality, common sense, morality and civilization. Basic concepts you seem largely unfamiliar with for some reason.

The only way to get something bordering on objective,
is to say something or broad and fuzzy that it loses it’s functional utility.
‘People ought act towards their preferences / interests’ — ok, so now what? This doesn’t resolve many questions.

Look who’s talking. Yikes.

I mean c’mon, am I right? Anyone? Anyone?

@HumAnIze

I already said nihilists were operating within meaning, their own nihilism is meaningful to themselves for example. Certainly nihilists are searching for meaning in some ways while at the same time attempting to subvert and destroy it in other ways.

Not all forms of nihilism are contradictory to personal meaning.

Well gosh darn it but thanks you so much for repeating what I JUST SAID. Amazing. You are truly astute.

There are claims contrary to the beliefs of nihilists,
but one needn’t want to destroy the opposing claim,
more fundamentally - one would be expected to disagree with the opposing claim.
That alone can suffice.

Oh yes, because all you care about is that you somehow disagree, and nothing else matters. Only your own egotistical little selfish space of “me me me” with no regard to wider existence or objectivity when it comes to the actual reasons why you are what you are, and why anyone is who they are. You couldn’t be bothered, nawww just netflix chill and peace out on some LSD like “we all here bruh, just liek, disagree n stuff, its all good broo we all liek godsn shiet”. Or whatever.

Do me a favor, don’t respond to me again. Thanks.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Hum, so glad you no longer think alcohol is great for regulating emotions.

[Ben_JS]

@HumAnIze

Not at all, but thanks for playing.

Perhaps among all your statements, this speaks loudest to me.

Have a good one.

[Ben_JS]

On reflection, I think this conversation was fruitful.
HumAnIze seems to have come around from initial claims.

@HumAnIze

Nihilism is a supposed rejection of meaning. In which case it should reject the meaning of nihilism, in which case nihilism would no longer exist or it would exist as some kind of empty placeholder term.
[…]
And not only this, but nihilism is a lie, a self-lie that nihilists tell themselves when they close their eyes and pretend that meaning isn’t there, when it always and absolutely is there.
[…]
Context: Nihilism is just like radical skepticism and solipsism, it only exists as a contradiction of itself.
[…]
Because a true nihilist would deny even the meaning of his own nihilism, which I have yet to see anyone do.

Then we end with:

@Ben JS

Not all forms of nihilism are contradictory to personal meaning.

@HumAnIze

Well gosh darn it but thanks you so much for repeating what I JUST SAID. Amazing. You are truly astute.

And I was saying this first, in response to his opening remarks.
So it would appear I’ve made my case.

[HumAnIze]

@Ichthus77

Hum, so glad you no longer think alcohol is great for regulating emotions.

No, I said it is good for that. Did I phrase it wrongly?

I mean it isn’t perfect, but it works. And it’s fun. Although I haven’t drank coffee or alcohol for days and I feel pretty damn good.

[HumAnIze]

@Ben JS

On reflection, I think this conversation was fruitful.
HumAnIze seems to have come around from initial claims.

@HumAnIze

Nihilism is a supposed rejection of meaning. In which case it should reject the meaning of nihilism, in which case nihilism would no longer exist or it would exist as some kind of empty placeholder term.
[…]
And not only this, but nihilism is a lie, a self-lie that nihilists tell themselves when they close their eyes and pretend that meaning isn’t there, when it always and absolutely is there.
[…]
Context: Nihilism is just like radical skepticism and solipsism, it only exists as a contradiction of itself.
[…]
Because a true nihilist would deny even the meaning of his own nihilism, which I have yet to see anyone do.

Then we end with:

@Ben JS

Not all forms of nihilism are contradictory to personal meaning.

@HumAnIze

Well gosh darn it but thanks you so much for repeating what I JUST SAID. Amazing. You are truly astute.

And I was saying this first, in response to his opening remarks.
So it would appear I’ve made my case.

=D>

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@HumAnIze

@Ichthus77

Hum, so glad you no longer think alcohol is great for regulating emotions.

No, I said it is good for that. Did I phrase it wrongly?

I mean it isn’t perfect, but it works. And it’s fun. Although I haven’t drank coffee or alcohol for days and I feel pretty damn good.

I heard: “we all here bruh, just liek, disagree n stuff, its all good broo we all liek godsn shiet”

[iambiguous]

Thomas Nagel
The Absurd

…I know that I am looking at a piece of paper, although I have no adequate grounds to claim I know that I am not dreaming; and if I am dreaming then I am not looking at a piece of paper.

Once we bring the absurd here of course it all spirals down into “the gap” and “Rummy’s Rules”. The Matrix itself on steroids. We are completely at a loss to know for certain where ontologically and/or teleologically all that we construe “here and now” to be either meaningful or purposeful fits into the “staggering vastness of all there is”.

If there is a God, it would be the equivalent of His very own “rabbit hole”.

Here an ordinary conception of how appearance may diverge from reality is employed to show that we take our world largely for granted; the certainty that we are not dreaming cannot be justified except circularly, in terms of those very appearances which are being put in doubt.

Yep. How is that not basically how it is? On the other hand, there it is: the actual life that we live with all of its seemingly flesh and blood obligations and responsibilities. After all, how many among those we interact with will go along with just sweeping it all under the rug metaphysically?

It is somewhat far-fetched to suggest I may be dreaming; but the possibility is only illustrative. It reveals that our claims to knowledge depend on our not feeling it necessary to exclude certain incompatible alternatives, and the dreaming possibility or the total-hallucination possibility are just representatives for limitless possibilities most of which we cannot even conceive.}

Back to this part:

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.

In fact, the objectivists here, in my view, are particular adept at convincing themselves that none of this is applicable to them. Not only is there nothing they don’t know about the either/or world, there is nothing they don’t know about how we ought to interact in it either.

Especially when they go about rejecting my own subjective assumptions as an utterly incompatible alternative. Incompatible in other words with the comfort and the consolation they suckle on when nestling down in their own “arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian” dogmas.

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

@iambiguous

Thomas Nagel
The Absur

Back to this part:

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.

In fact, the objectivists here, in my view, are particular adept at convincing themselves that none of this is applicable to them. Not only is there nothing they don’t know about the either/or world, there is nothing they don’t know about how we ought to interact in it either.

Especially when they go about rejecting my own subjective assumptions as an utterly incompatible alternative. Incompatible in other words with the comfort and the consolation they suckle on when nestling down in their own “arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian” dogmas.

Cunt…back to your sugarcane.
No authoritarianism…you sad, pathetic, imbecile.
All choices, including your own amoral choice, ought to suffer or benefit the actor, with no interventions from any external agency.

If Mary Land wants to fuck any dude she meets in a bar…I am not obliged to pay for her idiocy…you sad pathetic cunt.
I don’t care who she fucks or why…I care about being forced to pay for her errors.
Not for any reason other than that this propagates idiocy, expecting to be protected from all errors in judgements, that eventually lead to Americanism’sdegeneracy…
Mary Land can have as many abortions as her snatch can take…I don’t want to pay for it…see you sad, lying cunt?

I’m not authoritarian it is you, who demands that I, as part of a collective, contribute to Mary Land’s idiocy and sluttish lifestyle.

You claim to be an amoralist…then on what grounds do you demand that I be her supporter?

[iambiguous]

No, absolutely shameless.

Note to her:

He’ll follow me around now like a yapping poodle actually convinced that he is a snarling pit bull!

youtu.be/dLkUoaKC_EE

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

I am here, cunt…thump me with your “philosophy” of nil.
I’m waiting…tic-toc…tic-toc…
30 days to go.

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

You claim to be an amoralist…then on what grounds do you demand that I be her supporter?

Why should I, or anyone, pay to protect and pay for Mary Land’s abortions, you sad, lying cunt?
No god, no divine universal morality…give me a reason.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Are you guys talking about me? I am as pure as the driven snow. Jk. But there is no justification for paying for someone else’s hit job. Love them instead & surround them with resources (living wage for educated & accountable homeschooling moms? sure!…filter public school money their way, and let those go totally private!) like not taking advantage of them sexually, and make sure minors get paternity tests & nail some balls to the walls. Abortions’ll go away on their own & bankrupt the industry. Industries, actually.

Any further questions?

Thanks for this opportunity.

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

Nihilism = whatever concept contradicts or nullifies sensually experienced existence.
Any spiritual ([size=90]religious[/size]) or secular ([size=90]political, ideological, philosophical[/size]) idea/ideal that contradicts or nullifies sensually experienced existence.

Noumena usurping Phenomena.

[HumAnIze]

@Ichthus77

@HumAnIze

@Ichthus77

Hum, so glad you no longer think alcohol is great for regulating emotions.

No, I said it is good for that. Did I phrase it wrongly?

I mean it isn’t perfect, but it works. And it’s fun. Although I haven’t drank coffee or alcohol for days and I feel pretty damn good.

I heard: “we all here bruh, just liek, disagree n stuff, its all good broo we all liek godsn shiet”

Didn’t I already ask you to try and engage in the actual topics under discussion?

I take it back.

[HumAnIze]

@Lorikeet

Nihilism = whatever concept contradicts or nullifies sensually experienced existence.

Any spiritual ([size=90]religious[/size]) or secular ([size=90]political, ideological, philosophical[/size]) idea/ideal that contradicts or nullifies sensually experienced existence.

Noumena usurping Phenomena.

Wow, thanks for playing but I mean. Yikes.

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

Emoticons…the sign of a deep intellect.

iamastupidcunt belongs here for a reason.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@Lorikeet

Nihilism = whatever concept contradicts or nullifies sensually experienced existence.
Any spiritual ([size=90]religious[/size]) or secular ([size=90]political, ideological, philosophical[/size]) idea/ideal that contradicts or nullifies sensually experienced existence.

Noumena usurping Phenomena.

That answers a Nietzsche question. Thank you. I was so freaking confused.