Emile Cioran:
One is and remains a slave as long as one is not cured of hoping.
Here, in fact, are some things I have abandoned hope regarding:
1] living on after death
2] encompassing an authentic Self
3] acquiring an objective moral framework
and, of course:
4] convincing others they should abandon them too
Could you explain point 2 a little more?
it’s one of those things that doesn’t mean anything.
Almost anything, apart from anything, doesn’t mean anything.
Sorry. I’m easily amused. 
Agreed, same here, ditto and yep.
In Dante’s Inferno I believe the sign on the portal to the gates of hell reads: “Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.” I can definitely understand how life can be a hell on earth, hence a descent into utter nihilism and despair. A great cautionary tale on this process is Shakespeare’s Macbeth, the greatest study in nihilism and despair I’ve ever come across. In fact, I think that many American leaders could benefit from its lessons.
I hope I make it home safely? Or should I? It doesn’t matter, does it? Ignore it? Is it there? Faith/hope? Or should I mindlessly go forth?
Sure. There are those who believe that underneath all of the existential layers is one’s true, authentic Self. The man or women you were destined to be. That part of you that transcends contingency, chance and change.
Some folks liken it to your Soul. You take it with you after you die.
This has nothing to do with hell on earth. One can abandon all three and live a fabulous life. Indeed, if you acknowledge this one life is all you’ve got, you make the most of it. And in so doing you can be whom ever you need to be. And you certainly don’t want to be anchored to moral absolutes.
Nihilism works both ways. It can utterly demoralize you or utterly liberate you.
Also, a nihilistic political bent can lead to either anarchy and chaos or moderation, negociation and compromise.
After all, you’ve got to flexible when who abandon all hope for Salvation, Self and Sainthood.
I see. Well, I’d have to agree with you on the first three points, but maybe not the fourth so much.
A small part of me is always determined to try and change people’s views on existential things, particularly when it comes to religious values. I won’t outright try and convince somebody of my values, but when somebody tries to argue me down on it, I can’t help but try and enlighten them. Does that make me a hypocrite? Probably, because they are trying to ‘enlighten’ me too. But what can I do, that desire is latent within me I guess.
Hmm. If all is well in your life and your world, then of course you can abandon hope. I suppose anyone can convince themselves of this, but it would take a pretty special form of blindness to see the world that way. I think this is the way of the person stuck in the hedonistic shadow, concerned or obsessed with personal happiness and pleasure and not wanting to see or empathize with the pain and suffering of others or oneself.
Enlighten them about what? You can enlighten someone if that which you wish to impart is unquestionably more rational. But with respect to life after death, morality and human identity what can we know beyond all doubt that is rational?
We are always groping about the edges of something that ever escapes our grasp because we can never truly pin it down.
But one can choose empathy and be fulfilled trying to ameliorate or end it.
When the thought structure, pressed into the service of fear and hope, cannot achieve what it wants, or cannot be certain, it introduces what you call “faith”. Where is the need for belief, or its alter-ego faith? When your beliefs have gotten you nowhere, you are told you must cultivate faith. In other words, you must have hope. Whether you are seeking God, or bliss, peace of mind, or, more tangibly, happiness, you end up relying on hope, belief, and faith. These dependencies are the tokens of your failure to get the results you desire.
iambiguous,
Emile Cioran:
One is and remains a slave as long as one is not cured of hoping.
Interesting. Slavery and Hope. Maybe the point is that those who hope surrender their control. Hope is for the resigned, because what use is hope when you have the power and the will to bring about a desired state of affairs?
All the power in the world doesn’t make oblivion go away. But for those who are able to enforce their own “moral” agenda power [and the will to use it] can go a long way. And some are even able to put this up on a pedestal by embracing, say, the Uberman approach to human realtionships.
iambiguous,
What does it mean to enforce [one’s] own moral agenda? How does one not enforce one’s own moral agenda? That you interact with other people ensures you are effecting your moral agenda. It makes no difference if your morality is positive, an imposition e.g. thou shalt, or negative, a denial of imposition e.g. thou shalt not, both are “enforced”.
Suppose you live in a community where you are expected to behave in a certain way. “There is a right way and a wrong way to behave” the community insists. But suppose you don’t want to live that way? Are you then able to devise a strategy such that you accomplish this? Somehow, someway you have got to enforce your own moral agenda.
Some do succeed and others don’t.
iambiguous,
In that case, I think I agree. We all enforce a moral agenda, whether we realize it or not. Some of us, because we have more power, will, or whatever, enforce our agendas more successfully than others.
Yes, that is always fundamentally important out in the real world. Unless you have the political [or the economic] power to make your agenda an actual concrete reality, just having it won’t be of much use.