We’ll need an actual context of course.
How can you even say that?
To me my post was plain as day.
No need to say any more.
You actually mean that, don’t you?! 
Every once in a while the word nihilism will make an appearence in the news media.
Here’s one I just came across at the New York Times:
“I can tell a story in which the Trumpians self-marginalize or exhaust themselves. Permanent catastrophism is hard. But apocalyptic pessimism has a tendency to deteriorate into nihilism, and people eventually turn to the strong man to salve the darkness and chaos inside themselves.” David Brooks
Here’s the “context”: nytimes.com/2021/04/22/opin … e=Homepage
An assessment of those right wing extremists “out there” basically intent on making Donald Trump America’s first Führer.
But, again, I suspect that his use of the word revolves more around means than ends. The end, in other words, justifying any and all means.
On the other hand, there are those who don’t make this distinction. Nazis and Communists and Anarchists – all extremists – are construed to be nihilists.
Just the opposite of my own subjective assessment. For moral and political nihilists of my ilk, all ends are interchangeable given the “psychology of objectivism” here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296
Here’s the latest intellectual contraption from Satyr:
Again, all I can do is to challenge him – or those who subscribe to whatever they think he means here – to come to an agreement on a particular reality [set of circumstances] in which we can explore nihilism given the components of our own philosophies.
In particular as it relates to moral and political value judgments that come into conflict out in the real world.
In defense of Nihilism in the modern day
Ayush
In other words, the Capital N Nihilists. Whereas for me, as with Dasein, I prefer the lower case rendition. That way it can be attributed more to the existential parameters of the life that one lives rather than to some Philosophical Contraption in which Nihilism is Defined to Mean only what any particular Intellectual says it Means.
As though the Nihilist Movement and only the Nihilist Movement gets to decide who and what the authorities are and who or what is to be put in their place.
But even to call this “distorted” is to suppose that there is an understanding of it that is not distorted.
One in particular given my own little “n” propensity: “I” in the is/ought world.
The part where a failure to agree on what either is or is not the right thing to do – given the disjunction between what people say things mean and the inability to establish what they ought to mean – results in actual dire consequences at times.
See how he goes about it? He bitches about nihilists being only about the idea, the theoretical, the logos, the ideological, the social/memetic constructs.
It is as though he has the nihilist in his pocket. He pulls him out and says, “look everyone, I have the ‘all is nil, meaningless and illusory’ nihilist here”.
As though anyone who dares to construe nihilism as anything other than in how he encompasses it up in the fluffy white clouds that are his own serial intellectual contraptions is necessarily wrong. By definition.
And, over and again, I challenge him to come here and defend the components of his own argument against the components of mine.
How about it, Satyr? Or anyone else there or here who defends his point of view. Let’s agree on a particular set of circumstances and see what unfolds.
Here in the philosophy forum or over at Rant.
Satyrs dick is so tiny he has to sit down to pee. He is a Canadian atheistic, hippie-inbred materialist too who has his own evolution, his own nihilism, his own history and his own pretty much everything else since he is a complete goon.
Removed for irrelevance.
Me too!
Ha!
In defense of Nihilism in the modern day
Ayush
The immediate objection here of course is that there does not appear to be a way in which to actually defend this other than from within the gap between what you think true knowledge is “in your head” here and now and all there is to be known about anything given an understanding of existence itself.
Now this makes sense to me. But only because I myself have of late been unable to find any inherent meaning or purpose. On the other hand…
1] this does not exclude the possibility that they both do in fact exist given the gap between, well, you know.
2] the human condition is such that all that is necessary for there to be an inherent meaning and purpose to life is merely to believe that there is. After all, over the course of human history to date, there have already been countless hundreds of dogmas proposed. And some of which brutally enforced.
Reconfigure the Ethical Nihilist into the moral nihilist and, here and now, there I am. Or, for you, here I am. Still, I seem to be propelling myself here in conflicted directions. My aim seems intent on either coming across an argument that is successful in deconstructing and then reconstructing my own current assumptions in the direction of an inherent meaning and purpose to life; or to deconstruct the inherent meaning and purpose of the objectivists among us so as to bring them closer to my own fractured and fragmented frame of mind. The search for another that I can at least share my own grim conclusions with. And actually be understood.
Alas, however, ILP has now been taken over – more or less – by the Kids and the fulminating fanatics. There are just fewer and fewer minds here that might be successful in at least challenging my own set of conclusions. Then this stuff:
Now I am more and more embedded in the ways of godot.
Define dasein.
To witless:
Now, I have already done the “define dasein” bit with him. On this thread above or on another thread.
And, well, who knows how he will react to this, right? If it’s just another of his caustic rants, I’ll report it to Carleas. As, previously, I said I would if he goes off the deep end on one of my philosophy board threads.
Then it’s “beyond my control”.
And it is what’s ‘beyond Your control’ is what entails The Wait for godot, that is a very weighted archytype.
You are lying through your teeth you kook, you never defined dasein. You are a waste of time like the kook SATIRE…shameless liar and hypocrite, impossible to deal with. show me where you define dasein please!!!
Bro. Do u know what a signature thread is. Biggs has signature threads he will gladly direct u toward like seventeen times.
so what? there is no definition of dasein in these threads…in fact…his first page of his first thread does not even talk about what dasein is at all…show me where he defines dasein,its not that hard is it???
You haven’t seen the story about the belly of the working class beast and stuff? Biggs, hit em with the threads bro.
References are a problem.
Like mistaken identity, and a definition can turn the simple into an obstruce complexity. But even kooks can define any idea into challenging and oft
contradictory allusions.
Which may be a good thing, …
As long as opposing opinions are permitted …to tolerate an excluded middle.