Happiness is not objective. Having all our “needs” fulfilled at the same time only “generates” more “needs” after variant amounts of time, a “need” for change, because we get “bored”. I’m fine with not being perfectly “happy”, “finding” “happiness” in some things that I find to be pleasant, even if I don’t know why (or if there is no why).
Aren’t the nihilists those who are hungry for heaven, but believe it doesn’t exist? The ones who long for a sense in life, but think it’s not possible?
I agree with Nietzsche’s somewhat vague comparison of Christianity (and religion in its entirety) with nihilism. The only difference is, as you proclaimed, nihilists long for a heaven that they recognize doesn’t exist, as opposed to adhering to blind faith. Nihilism is faithless religion. (That’s a crappy way of putting it and kind of cliche, but you get the point.)
There needs to be a distinction between “sad nihilists” and this new breed of “happy nihilists”. To put it bluntly, “sad nihilists” eventually resort to suicide or the belief in suicide (considering most haven’t the juevos to commit to that philosophy). On the other hand, “happy nihilists” boast a more laid back, Big Lebowski, “akuna matata” attitude.
Now, as for happiness, it is in fact objective; it is the releasing of chemical endorphins in our brains. A “happy nihilist” realizes this. He yearns for numbness and stoicism, and will pretty much cop out to any kind of opiate (religion, heroin, etc.) to artificially induce such so-called happiness. A “sad nihilist”, as you said, concludes that the meaninglessness of happiness is redundant. Therefore, suicide.
It seems that you’re agreeing with Schopenhauer by saying that the will is incapable of ever being satisfied. You forget that the sentient mind that we’ve developed over the past million years is extremely complex. We do carry with us the animalistic primal instincts for dominance and pleasure that seems insatiable, but this drive transcends so many layers of our psyche, that one can spend approximately one life time attempting to appease oneself entirely. What would really be redundant would be to focus on only one “field of dominance”, so to speak, and inhibiting all other passions just because they seem useless.
Existentialists (of which I consider myself to be) understand that meaning, purpose, and reason, do in fact exist; it’s just that they only exist within the faculties of our own minds. One of the very greatest things that distinguishes us from this cold, indifferent Universe, is our innate ability to create value in the face of a blatant lack thereof. But, unfortunately, like any newly crafted clay sculpture, these values begin to harden and become hollow with time.
What makes life worth living is not the accumulation of happiness; after all, what makes happiness so great is that it is fleeting. So, to accrue happiness points over the span of a lifetime eventually inflates the psyche’s ‘economy’ and decreases its value. And now look at you’ve done. You’ve just flooded the happiness market!
Also, I suggest watching this: http://www.gethappy.com/more1.html
hmm, in my line of thought I consider only the “sad nihilists” nihilists. But that is pure convention.
´
Meant to use “happiness” on the first one as well. Missed it I guess…
But anyway, that question is on the same scope of simulation. If someone presents all the symptoms of a disease, but not the reason of the disease, are they sick?
The “happiness” ‘economy’ piece was part of what I meant at the beggining. It is also one of the arguments to be used versus ‘happiness objectivism’ - endorphines lose their efficiency if you constantly flood the “market”. And when you aren’t very sensible to it, the “truth” comes up and you have no ‘real’ (as in other than the chemical) reason to be happy.
Never meant that the “animal” lust was what mattered. The point was the inexistence of perfect. In fact, even if there was a perfect, I’d surely find it boring. Seem to be confusing me for a nihilist due to my worthless piece of text at the beggining.
I don’t believe that there ever were newly crafted clay sculptures… They were already hardened and partly hollow when they started. There was never a social contract in a sense that everyone united and decided that society with a central power was the way to go. Power was always in the equation. Hidden interests, etc, too.
If I had to put myself on any school of thought, peharps it would be on post-structuralism, but with a more contemporary scope. Very few criticisms to Foucault, but I still have a long way to go to have a really good knowledge of what he wrote.
But, back to the initial point. I would consider any Marxist or anyone who idealizes democracy someone with a great ‘danger’ or ‘potential’ to become a nihilist (in fact, any teleologist). Or anyone who believes that there was once a pure ‘sculpture’ that embodied our values, even though it lost those with time. However, potential doesn’t mean fulfilling of it.
I think you and I ended up pretty much with the same conclusions. Forgive my assumptions that were a nihilist or at least being nihilistic; I was more or less using ‘you’ figuratively just to get my point across anyways.
I meant the clay-sculpture analogy to be more individualistic. While a master-like, existential evaluator creates a soft and malleable subjective framework for the world (while knowing full well the subjectivity of it), slave-like, nihilists can be blamed for essentially jacking that guy’s “art” and systematizing it and institutionalizing it into cold, ideological “kitsch”. Thus, Jesus’ personal philosophy of love and peace, becomes hardened and brittle with Christian teleological nihilism.
Now, I’m unfamiliar with post-structuralism and Foucault. I’m looking for some new readings, is he pretty good? I keep hearing about him but never get the chance to Google him.
Societal supplies and demands of constructed desires is neverending often being eternally elastic or unending.
Essentially I believe nihilism states the same.
Yes.
The difference is nihilism longs only for a heaven that doesn’t exist. Other philosophies are ok with what we’ve got, but there’s always the need for a change towards what would be ‘better’ for us. In my conception of nihilism, anyway.
I think nihilism denies a utopic heaven or some global future location in that it affirms that we can only find satisfaction in ourselves only to whatever end each of us should choose.
There is no “better” in nihilism.
There is only relativity and randomness.
Oh yes, when I said “heaven that doesn’t exist” meant that they know that too.
If there is satisfaction, if there is something that makes life worth living, I wouldn’t call that nihilism.
Yes, that’s why I used ’ ’ in ‘better’. Kinda works at many times, and doesn’t require that I elaborate on some points. It would be ‘better’ in the sense of favoring change over staying where we are.
One can be a nihilist and still find personal meaning.
Satisfaction afterall is a personal derivation.
Favor change in what way? I personally don’t see the change favored by others as desirable in anyway for myself or the world I live in for instance.
If there’s meaning for a person, I don’t see that person as a nihilist. I see someone as a nihilist when they find no meaning at all. As I said before, I don’t view the so called ‘happy nihilists’ as nihilists.
In the way to avoid getting bored, in the way to divert your life from becoming a ‘routine’. Has to do with the “when you only have candy, it doesn’t taste so good anymore”.
There’s a big issue with that statement. My conception of what nihilism is similar to adolphos’. The complete and utter denial of the existence of meaning while still finding/discovering/creating/making/imagining/choosing such meaning, or, in this case, satisfaction, is not called nihilism; it’s called existentialism.
‘True’ nihilism is the acceptance that even the pursuit of said values (like satisfaction) is redundant, even on the basis of fulfilling it for the sake of fulfilling it. It’s the extremist form of pessimism, despite that this new breed of ‘happy nihilists’ adheres to a so-called more positive outlook of the philosophy. In my honest opinion, ‘happy nihilists’ are just existentialists whom recognize their responsibility for their own satisfaction, but are too lazy (for lack of a better term) to pursue it.