Okay, in the same way that dogs are related to wolves, I’d like to make a thread about the relatives of nihlism; Genus el Nihil.
*Anti-Dualism.
*Objectivism.
*“Extreme-Relativism”.
*Deconstructionism.
*Criticism.
*Leftism.
*Cynicism.
*Reductionism.
*Systemization.
*Anti-Emotionalism.
*Reverse-structuralism.
*Darwinism.
*Materialism.
And there we go.
Perfect me!
If we’re doing a genealogy of nihilism, shouldn’t build up a conceptual or chronological diagram of relationality? Something besides a flat list? Don’t get me wrong; I like where you’re going with this. Just give me a little more.
Also, why is “leftism” related to nihilism? And who would count as a “reverse-structuralist” (I’m guessing post-structuralists? Someone like Lyotard or Foucault?)
I’m a naturalist (materialist) and find Nihilism and cynicism completely idiotic. I am not alone.
I think your listing may generate far more complexities than you suspect. It will be interesting to see how this thread progresses though 
Before one can become a nihilist,
One must take the far-left of what he usedto defend as true, right and virtueous. He must opposite and become the opposite of what he once worshipped and gave his admirations to.
Post-structuralism is a term that I have heard about, but, I think “reverse-structuralism” is a better word. Why?
Well, a deconstructing mechanism is still a conceptual tool or structure. And, when someone refutes or denies the culturalness of all knowledge, belief, value or “truth”, what is he using in order to deny that with!? He is using something of which he has gleaned from his own era, his own culture, his own bloodline, his own live experience. And in this way, he takes a little bit of culture and a little of structure, in order to reverse and destroy or undermine the rest.
Inversion is so much like “destruction” or “denile”, in that it bares same fruitage, but, inversion is still a piece of that which it destroys, in the same way that a predator is still part of the ecosystem that it consumes.
So, rather than actually read poststructuralism to find out what it is, you just assume you know and then arbitrarily rename it. Does this not strike you as somewhat arrogant, or at least dangerously presumptuous?
There are no deconstructing mechanisms. Deconstruction isn’t a hammer or a factory. Language deconstructs itself. We can read with an awareness of this or not.
Something fluid and non-mechanical.
Not to reverse or destroy, merely to classify. Cultural relativism is a form of classification, a sort of meta-anthropology.
And poststructuralism isn’t, for the most part, a culturally relativistic philosophy. It has been used to argue for such positions, but as I keep saying, Derrida is a closet Kantian.
Denile is a river in Egypt. More seriously, I think you should try reading poststructuralism (I’ve posted 3 or 4 good introductory threads) before passing judgment on it. Just a suggestion.
I consider fluid as something which is mechanical, also.
Atomically, just a construct of many parts…
And fire isn’t hot?
Fire is also a deconstruction, physically…
Most any ideas are plucked from one culture or another.
And sub-atomically, it’s just vibrating fluid.
Yes, it is.
Dan, stop playing silly buggers with words you don’t understand in order to try to look knowledgeable.
What the hell is this supposed to mean?
I’m not surprised.
i.e. ‘I can’t answer your criticisms so I’ll make some obtuse, patronising comment which makes me feel better’.
Terrific…
Disappointingly I see, from several - nothing but name dropping, willful ambiguousness, and showboating in lieu of genuine philosophizing. A common misfortune.
Rather than sitting on the sidelines naysaying, you could always improve it via your own contribution being an example to others.
But it wasn’t insulting, either. 
I’m pretty sure that patronising someone is a form of insulting them.
You should like this post, since it’s entirely analytic (i.e. arguing about the definitions of words) and encompasses argument by assertion.
Dan~
Just a question: What if Nihilism is true, should we pretend that it’s not?
This question was stimulated by a film that that I saw.
Nihilism is a combination of a philosophy and an attitude towards life. The philosophy could be judged to be true, but the attitude has no truth value. Existentialism is the same, just the attitude is replaced. The only way that Nihilistic or Existentialistic philosophies can be true is if you can prove that God doesn’t exist, but since it is virtually impossible to prove a negative, then whether N or E are true will always be an open question and debatable.
You don’t have to worry about negatives that you can’t prove.
Ontological nihilism can’t be absolutely “true”,
Because it says that “truth” doesn’t exist,
Therefor, as trueness does not exist, nihilism is not true, either.
In order to falsify a reality, or disprove a reality, one must first have something that is “most real” in order to disprove the “false real”. I mean to say: The process of “proof” is incredibly nihilistic, because it supposedly renders all other forms of belief, or perception as “untrue”, when they lack a certian expected “proof”.
I consider strongly-reductive “scientists” as being quasi-nihilistic, because of how much disbelief and critic they have for everything outside of their isolated proof-system.
The final step is for the scorpion to sting its own monastic proof-system, so that everything becomes un-provable, and thus “untrue”.
But the one saying that it is all “untrue” or “meaningless”
Still hides, and that little inner voice still considers its own meaning as true.
I think that it is at least shrewd, to dive into an extremely abstract, relativistic view of all sense and all perception. Reductionistic empiricism & materialism was a failed attempt at curing stupidity; and was mostly a reactive negation, reacting to a once-religiously-dominated culture of information. Monotheism and math are still both absolutisms. Closed-systems. Athrophised and reduced.
And I wont bother trying to make what I said very comprehensible.
You know it is disturbing, to me… these words…
English…
It doesn’t work.
Telepathy works, and we don’t have it. :-3
I’ve said nothing.
Proof:
Affirmative-sensual-gratification.
Dan~ don’t they mean capital T kind of truth which is absolute?
Also, if there is no god and our lives, the Earth, and the universe will end, then aren’t they correct about that much.
I’m a naturalist too. Fricken dumb guy. Who says anything has to exist?
Other people find you face idiotic, but you don’t hear them complaining.