nihilism

[iambiguous]

'I Am A God’: On Becoming More Than HumanDavid Birch compares the attitudes of Friedrich Nietzsche and Kanye West.

Yet despite the similarities between West’s god and Nietzsche’s Übermensch, the following three lines also show their profound differences:

"I am a god
Even though I’m a man of God
My whole life in the hands of God”

How does this not mean only that which West himself thinks the words mean? The same with anyone who might think more or less the same.

In other words, from my frame of mind, words of this sort can mean any number of conflicting things to any number of conflicted people. Those folks, for example, who insist it is only what they believe the words mean that count.

Rather than seeing life as a kind of submission to the embracing care of a higher being, Nietzsche believed that ‘life itself is the will to power’ (Beyond Good and Evil, 1886).

Will to power! One of those expressions that can often sound bold to the ear. And as such can take on an importance in someone’s life well beyond his or her actually being able to finally pin down – philosophically? morally? politically – what it means.

On the one hand, it sounds like something that might be embraced by those who practice might makes right. On the other hand, for many Nietzscheans, it’s not that at all. Any number of Ubermensch exercise their will to power because they deem themselves to be worthy of it. It’s more about their self-righteous assumptions regarding the masters and the slaves in a “God is dead” world.

We are not, as Darwin thought, primarily driven by a will to survive. To define life as the opposition to death offers no clear idea of what life itself is. On the contrary, Nietzsche wants to characterise life as something that cannot be understood simply in its relation to death. It is more than the mere flight from its absence. It is, for Nietzsche, the will to grow, expand, and dominate.

Now all we need are the Nietzsheans among us to come down out of the philosophical clouds and note how they practice the will to power themselves in their day to day interactions with others. Interactions in particular in which value judgments come into conflict.

And one by one by one even the Ubermensch will tumble over into an abyss that may or may not be oblivion.

[iambiguous]

Mitchell Heisman

There is a very popular opinion that choosing life is inherently superior to choosing death. This belief that life is inherently preferable to death is one of the most widespread superstitions. This bias constitutes one of the most obstinate mythologies of the human species.

Gods and religions some suspect.

Uncertain of uncertainty, skeptical of skepticism, it seems that the most important question is whether there is an important question.

Next up [or not]: whether there are important answers.

What does despair mean to someone who interprets that emotion as a chemical reaction in the brain?

See, I told you.

If there is no extant God and no extant gods, no good and no evil, no right and no wrong, no meaning and no purpose: if there are no values that are inherently valuable; no justice that is ultimately justifiable; no reasoning that is fundamentally rational, then there is no sane way to choose between science, religion, racism, philosophy, nationalism, art, conservatism, nihilism, liberalism, surrealism, fascism, asceticism, egalitarianism, subjectivism, elitism, ismism. If reason is incapable of deducing ultimate, non-arbitrary human ends, and nothing can be judged as ultimately more important than anything else, then freedom is equal to slavery; cruelty is equal to kindness; love is equal to hate; war is equal to peace; dignity is equal to contempt; destruction is equal to creation; life is equal to death and death is equal to life. Nihilism represents the ultimate logical conclusion of our great values and ideals- because we must experience nihilism before we can find out what value these “values” really had.”

[i]Pick 3:

1] new post
2] new thread
3] new forum

Now put them in the correct order.[/i]

I might be a nihilist except that I don’t believe in anything.

So, is that the same as or different from believing in nothing?

To be serious about an idea, one must push it to its most extreme consequence and conclusion. Are moderns serious about the idea that biology does not matter? Are moderns willing to push economic materialism to its logical conclusion?

You tell me.

[abc1231 (Jupiter123)]

An individual interprets electromagnetic binary energy waves emitted from vibrating matter Iambiguous.

So an individual is not vibrating matter or electromagnetic binary energy waves.

An individual exists because an individual needs to exist to claim that they don’t exist.An individual needs to exist to claim anything at all such as “I am an illusion”.So an individual can even claim that they are a misrepresentation of reality (an illusion) if they want.

An individual can claim that words have no meaning but again they are claiming things.

An individual still hasn’t cancelled out if they claim things and until they do they can’t claim that moral absolutes don’t exist (because +=- and -=+ philosophy hasn’t happened..yet) and therefore they can’t re-invent science.

Things only become meaningless when everything cancels out but everything has not cancelled out yet.

[iambiguous]

‘I Am A God’: On Becoming More Than Human
David Birch compares the attitudes of Friedrich Nietzsche and Kanye West.

Life exists either actively or reactively. The active will to power creates its own values; it remakes the world in its own image and confidently seeks to destroy all that impedes it. The reactive will to power is not the source of its own values; it has no confidence in itself. It exercises its power by denying the values of the active.

Back to the part whereby, in being an Ubermensch, you accumulate any number of assumptions regarding the best of all possible No God worlds. And, again, if every single Ubermensch shared the same convictions regarding this…?

That would be intriguing to say the least.

To me, it would be analogous to all Kantians around the globe not only embracing moral obligations, but all agreeing on what actions and reactions must be embodied by those who wish to think of themselves as rational and virtuous human beings. Given particular sets of circumstances.

We act and then react to others who then react to our own reactions given what they imagine the most reasonable actions and reactions must be. Their very own, say. The rest being history if you get my drift.

Lacking the strength to say ‘Yes’, it asserts itself by saying ‘No’. The reactive will to power is dependent on the values it opposes. If it were to destroy these values, it would instantaneously destroy itself. Those enslaved to their reactive attitudes are both too weak to create, and too weak to destroy.

What on Earth and for all practical purposes does this mean? If you basically agree with it, how then is it applicable to your own interactions with others that come into conflict?

In other words, destroying what values and replacing them with what other values in a world teeming with deeply conflicted accounts of what actually does constitute “the best of all possible worlds”.

Then the part where moral nihilists of my ilk become “fractured and fragmented” in a No God world said to be “beyond good and evil”.

[abc1231 (Jupiter123)]

There is no such thing as a nihilist because you can’t cancel yourself out because you exist because you need to exist to claim that you don’t exist.You can foolishly claim to be a nihilist I suppose but then you would be a foolish liar who is merely claiming to be nihilist but who in reality is unaware that you need to exist to claim it.

We now know that the most foolish claim in all of history is the claim “I don’t exist” because you need to exist to claim it.

You can claim that you exist and are a misrepresentation of reality (an illusion) I suppose but then that begs the question what is a representation of reality? Let’s be honest,who in their right mind is remotely interested in misrepresentations of reality?

[Kallikantzaros (Silenus)]

“And you say that we have intercourse with becoming by means of the body through sense, whereas we have intercourse with Real being by means of the soul through reflection. And Real Being, you say, is always in the same unchanging state, whereas Becoming is variable.”

[Phædo]

–Plato

Plato was easily integrated into Abrahamic spiritualism. Schopenhauer was not immune.

[iambiguous]

‘I Am A God’: On Becoming More Than Human

David Birch compares the attitudes of Friedrich Nietzsche and Kanye West.

As he went sniffing through history he heaved with disgust upon encountering Christianity and its virtues of compassion, self-sacrifice, and equality. Nietzsche thought that Christian ethics is the very antithesis of the concept of life. Christianity believes that we are forlorn sinners in need of salvation, too weak to survive without constant care, too lost to cope without universal laws and subsequent judgment, each of us awaiting the ultimate solution to the problem of existence – eternal peace in a heavenly hereafter.

On the other hand, when it comes down to “sniffing through history”, Nietzsche, much like the rest of us, took out of it what he first put into it…his very own moral, political, philosophical and religious prejudices. As though assumptions regarding “will to power”, “Übermensch”, “last men”, “eternal return”, “perspectivism”, “the death of God”, and the distinction made between “Apollonian” and “Dionysian” can be pinned down such that all historians can agree on what they meant to Nietzsche and the extent to which what they meant to Nietzsche can be demonstrated to encompass that which all rational men and women are then obligated to accept if they they wish to be thought of as rational.

To Nietzsche these ideas constitute a total devaluation of our terrestrial lives. But Nietzsche wants to emphasise that this story is still in the service of the will to power. To him Christianity is a concerted effort on the part of the weak to subjugate the strong and suppress the healthy.

This is a classic assumption, in my view. In other words, some will embrace it just as whole-heartedly as others will flat out reject it. And both historically and culturally, human communities have come up with any number of “for all practical purposes” “rules of behavior” that would seem to lean in one direction here rather than another. Then the part political economy plays in sustaining one or another rendition of the “deep state”.

Unable to create its own values, the reactive will to power parasitically exerts itself by negating life-affirming values. Whereas the active will to power creates a Yes-saying ‘master morality’, in which good is contrasted with bad, the ‘slave morality’ of the reactive will to power contrasts good with evil.

Then back to the part where those here who accept this note how it is pertinent existentially to their own interactions with others in which assessments of “the meaning of life”, “morality” and “metaphysics” come into conflict. Why one set of assumptions arriving at one set of conclusions rather than another?

Given particular sets of circumstances.

[abc1231 (Jupiter123)]

“I think, therefore I am” is incorrect.

“I exist, therefore I am” is correct

Rene Descartes was wrong.

You need to exist to claim that you don’t exist.If you claim that you don’t exist then you are a liar who exists.

[iambiguous]

‘I Am A God’: On Becoming More Than Human
David Birch compares the attitudes of Friedrich Nietzsche and Kanye West.

Nietzsche’s Post-Human

West’s implication that there is something deficient about mere humanity places him well in the company of Friedrich Nietzsche. Both see themselves as outsiders. Nietzsche felt disconnected from his profession (his work was generally ignored), his nation (he spent much of his life outside of Germany, alternating between Switzerland and Italy) and his epoch (‘a weak age’).

On the other hand, I suspect any number of “mere mortals” reacted to Nietzsche as they did because he yanked God out from under them. And even though historically there were any number secular facsimiles to choose from, they only take you to the grave.

Similarly, I believe any number of “mere mortals” react to me in much the same way. What if the “human condition” really is essentially meaningless and purposeless? What if objective morality does give way [reasonably] to a fractured and fragmented moral philosophy in a No God universe? What if death does end in oblivion?

Or what if we are to nature what robots are to us?

But more provocatively, Nietzsche felt disconnected from his species: “Disgust at mankind… has always been my greatest danger” (Ecce Homo, 1888).

Though not unlike any other such reaction to the world around us, there does not appear to be a one size fits all assessment. In other words, how on Earth would philosophers go about determining if “disgust at mankind” ought to be the reaction of all rational men and women to the human species?

Like West, he heard no power in the assertion, ‘I am human’. He thought that being human was a state to be overcome; humanity’s finest moment will be the day it becomes something else entirely, something better. The future belongs to this new creature, the Übermensch or ‘overman’ (‘superman’).

Now, I’ve come to believe this indicated an attempt on Nietzsche’s part to offer “mere mortals” in a No God universe hope that there was still a hierarchy to be had between those deemed to be “one of us” [the Übermensch] and those deemed to be “one of them” [the Last Men]. Not only that but what if there was hope for immortality:

“And Nietzsche, with his theory of eternal recurrence. He said that the life we lived we’re gonna live over again the exact same way for eternity. Great. That means I’ll have to sit through the Ice Capades again.” woody allen

Still, I suspect those of Allen’s ilk would no doubt jump at the chance to actually believe in anything pertaining to “the afterlife” that does not revolve around oblivion. I know that I would.

Now, where does Kanye West fit into all of this comparatively today?

Damned if I know.

[abc1231 (Jupiter123)]

Nietzsche suffered from psychosis.

That’s it.

He claimed to be a misrepresentation of reality (an illusion).

You need to exist to claim that you don’t exist.If you claim that you don’t exist then you are liar who exists.

Nietzsche’s problem was he lacked life.

He didn’t jump off the hamsters wheel once because his arrogant religious beliefs wouldn’t let him.

Nietzsche was a cognitively biased philosopher that’s all.

Cognitively biased/unbalanced philosophy is not the foundation for reality.

Cognitively unbiased/balanced philosophy is.

[abc1231 (Jupiter123)]

Nihilism is dead.

You need to exist to claim you don’t exist.

[iambiguous]

‘I Am A God’: On Becoming More Than HumanDavid Birch compares the attitudes of Friedrich Nietzsche and Kanye West.

Do you, reader, sympathise with Nietzsche’s wish for a species revolution? Do you see some fundamental defect in humanity? If there were a referendum on human nature, would you vote to leave? How would you even describe human nature? Are there words elastic enough to encompass us all? Is there a common thread? A shared bond?

Let’s run that by these folks…

List of religions and spiritual traditions

List of political ideologies

List of philosophies

…to see if we can come up with something in the way of a consensus regarding questions of this sort.

Well, if you get my drift, of course.

For Nietzsche, our bond is our sickness, and our sickness is a state he called nihilism. In short, a hatred of life.

Again, however, I suspect actual examples of those who do hate their life will revolve far more around circumstances than…philosophy? And for all those ubermensch and uberwomensch who, instead, love life, have they reached a consensus regarding what exactly that entails given specific sets of circumstances?

Nietzsche believed that to be human was to belong to a species-wide endeavour to stunt growth, enervate power, deaden vitality, limit strength, and poison joy; an endeavour impelled by so-called ‘reactive’ attitudes such as envy and the urge to avenge ourselves against the strong and vigorous.

This, one suspects, is why some will insist religions such as Abrahamism beget nihilism. In other words, in regard to actual consequences, they seek to create a world in which the ubermensch and uberwomensch are crushed under the weight of majority rules, democracy, the welfare state, etc.

On the other hand, for those of my own “rooted existentially in dasein” persuasion, religions, political ideologies, philosophical dogmas and the like reflect the opposite of nihilism. Instead, they embrace one or another One True Path to Enlightenment. Often though these moral and political objectivists will embrace a “by any means necessary” “anything goes” mentality/agenda that some will construe as nihilistic.

And although for Nietzsche there have been great ages – history is punctuated by glorious deviations from the norm – sooner or later the overwhelming weight of nihilism drags us back into the gutter. Greek culture was corrupted by the philosophers; Roman values by the morality of Judaism; Christ’s teachings by St Paul; and Napoleonic aristocracy by democratic ideals. This nihilism ensures that, contra Darwin, the strong and vital will always be defeated by the weak and envious.

This is the part where some ubermensch and uberwomensch will reconfigure “might makes right” into “right makes might”. They are the masters not because they have sustained the brute power to rule but because they are entitled to rule being superior human beings.

[iambiguous]

Mitchell Heisman

“The land of opportunity", “The American dream”, “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”: these are the sounds of the great sucking mechanism of the American parasite. The reliance of seduction and persuasion over coercion that sold democracy to the American people eventually sold it to the rest of the world. Although there are a minority of examples of the direct parasitism of involuntary immigration, especially slaves from Africa and the “legal” incorporation of Native Americans, voluntary immigration through the lure of freedom and equality is only a more indirect form of parasitic predation. What is voluntary can be no less predatory than coercion, just as capitalism can be no less predatory than military imperialism. From the point of view of competition among nations, the point is not whether a citizen or their ancestor originally arrived voluntarily or involuntarily, but whether a nation or ideology is successful in harnessing its human resources towards its national interest or way of life. American parasitism works because it offers the secular Judaism of liberalism rather than the secular Christianity of communism. Communism could never compete with the immigrant American hope that they themselves might one day be a filthy rich capitalist.**

He might as well just kill himself.

To expose the roots of liberal democracy in ethnic conflict is an act of destruction that is necessary to lay the foundations for a far greater construction. Creating God is the last and greatest goal that the human race is capable of. If and when there exists an artificial intelligence greater than all the greatest philosophers of human history combined, philosophy will quite likely be different because the philosopher will be different. The AI God philosopher is the overcoming of Nietzsche in the overcoming of the conflict between ‘reason and revelation’.

Next up: eternal recurrence.

Americans do not apply egalitarianism to the organization of their individual minds. I have yet to see the American Project for freedom and equality applied by an individual to free the neurons of his or her brain from mindless obedience to his or her mind.

Let’s run this by, well, you know.

While there is no way to definitively distinguish between the ancient and the modern, “culture” is more ancient and closer to biology, while “civilization” is more modern and closer to technology.

Of course, he’s only paraphrasing, well, you know.

Valuing individual humans as ends in themselves thus opposes biological evolution on many levels. If humanity is collectively treated as end in itself, moreover, then all the rest of the world can be conceived as means at the disposal of humanity’s ends and purposes.

Let’s explain this.

What really happens in the Western countries that adopt feminism and individualism is not the complete end of the human race, but rather, the relative demographic decline of the native populations of liberal democracies. The individual irrationality of the self-sacrificial parent to child relationship helps produce genetically suicidal birthrates.

Obviously.

[futureone]

@iambiguous

If and when there exists an artificial intelligence greater than all the greatest philosophers of human history combined,

I am the greatest philosopher of all history. At most, ASI could simply mimick me or reach the same conclusions as me and refine my philosophies.

What we need from ASI is to be the greatest scientist and engineer of all times. I am a great scientist and engineer but I am not perfect, an ASI could surpass me.

[abc1231 (Jupiter123)]

The simple reality is that you are deluded futureone.

You exist but don’t possess life.

[futureone]

I assure you that I both exist and possess life and am working hard to free all life in the universe from such a curse.

[abc1231 (Jupiter123)]

You’re deluded futureone because your +=- and -=+ philosophy is cognitively biased.

You’re a psychotic who claims to be a misrepresentation of reality (an illusion).You need help.

You don’t posses life.You only exist because you are spiritually dead.

The fool says in his heart, there is no God.

[abc1231 (Jupiter123)]

What does it matter if you exist and don’t exist but know 100% that you do exist because you need to exist to claim that you don’t exist?

IF YOU DON’T POSSESS LIFE!!!

All this proves is you are a lifeless machine which exists and claims that it doesn’t exist because it’s programmed with binary software.

We all exist and we can claim to be a misrepresentation of reality (an illusion) or we can claim to be a representation of reality (a non illusion).