Free Will and Nihilism [Archive]

Splittet

12-05-2007, 03:18 PM

If one takes a truly materialist outlook, I would agree with you about freewill.

However, rights certainly have a foundation if one looks into the current work being done in moral psychology.

Also, if you take the stance that rights have no foundation, a particular law cannot be just or just. While this need does not posit that rights necessarily exist, if one takes the stance you are taking justice simply becomes the interest of the stronger party.

I am a nihilist, so yeah, I don't believe in any objective justice.

Why don't humans have free will? That's a pretty strange statement to make with no explanation.

Sums it up pretty well: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

:disappointed:
So if humans, and more specifically yourself, don't have any rights. There would be nothing wrong with someone coming over there and beating the hell out of your statist ass? :suspicious: Not that I would, because I believe in Natural Rights, which includes your right to do what you want as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. Or does your belief system only apply to others, and not yourself?

Modify to add: Or are you just trolling.

Objectively, it would be nothing wrong in it, no. Personally I would mind, because I don't like being beaten. Kill me, and I would still say that you objectively did nothing wrong, but it wouldn't really be a pleasant experience for me. :P

prometheus

12-05-2007, 03:33 PM

Fascinating theory...........I still don't buy it.............but it has tempted me into reading some more Nietzsche to try to figure out where you are coming from.

I do agree with the thought that the only rights you really have are the ones you are willing to fight for.............but, that is only because so many people waive the natural rights they do have.

Splittet

12-05-2007, 04:01 PM

prometheus

12-05-2007, 04:21 PM

In my opinion we take morals for granted, but it's all a hoax. That being said, it's quite practical. And why should truth be worth so much anyway? When we decide to live, we might as well do it fully, and embrace what is life-affirming, rather than truth. I guess that is the nature of evolution, really. One might say human culture is just one large web of lies.

The sort of nihilism I believe in, is very hard to live with. How precisely do you actually live with it? Nietzsche suggested we should create our own values and purposes. Other suggestions I have read, is that nihilism is simply something you are able to deal with or not. It is all about your inherit temperament. Some has it, some doesn't. I guess I am coming more and more to believe that.

Sounds a lot like hedonism too me. I don't know if there is anything to discuss, since your views appear so ..........fluid. I don't see anything wrong with you believing it. It's not my cup of tea, though. I would only have a problem with this if your "full" lifestyle required me to follow or support it.

More power to the individual! :)

Lucid

12-05-2007, 11:30 PM

Sums it up pretty well: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think you should do some more research into the science behind this claim. By this logic, the moon would affect our behavior because of the amount of water in our bodies. This has been proven false.

You can believe in free will or not, but if you don't then you can't get mad at your girlfriend for cheating on you. Society can't punish criminals. Because they had no choice in the matter. If you take away free will then you take away personal responsibility. If you do that I think you'll be amazed at what people "choose" to do, now that there are no consequences.

prometheus

12-05-2007, 11:41 PM

Good points Lucid. Free will and religious topics aren't my strong points. I think I'll kick back watch you guys and jump in when it come back to Rights.

Lucid

12-05-2007, 11:44 PM

Good points Lucid. Free will and religious topics aren't my strong points. I think I'll kick back watch you guys and jump in when it come back to Rights.

Thank you, but you bring up a valid point. We have discussed free will and religion in another thread and should leave this one to libertarianism.

prometheus

12-05-2007, 11:53 PM

Thank you, but you bring up a valid point. We have discussed free will and religion in another thread and should leave this one to libertarianism.

Where at?

"I like to watch" BEING THERE

Splittet

12-06-2007, 02:55 AM

I think you should do some more research into the science behind this claim. By this logic, the moon would affect our behavior because of the amount of water in our bodies. This has been proven false.

Ridiculous. By showing that one thing does not have an effect, you do not show that other things don't have an effect. What about hormones, for example? Perhaps changes in behaviour caused by the position of the moon are so small they are not measurable?

You can believe in free will or not, but if you don't then you can't get mad at your girlfriend for cheating on you. Society can't punish criminals. Because they had no choice in the matter. If you take away free will then you take away personal responsibility. If you do that I think you'll be amazed at what people "choose" to do, now that there are no consequences.

Says the one who believes in free will... You talk from a free will perspective. I am both a nihilist and determinist, still I think you might very well lock people up for pragmatic reasons, but it will never be because of some kind of objective justice. If my girlfriend cheats on me I know it will be for a reason, perhaps I am able to understand it, but I might very well be mad at her, for just being the person she is and because the illusion of her is broken. And yeah, I don't believe in personal responsibility, that being said, things happen because you are the person you are. But again, who you are, is just the playing out of environmental forces and genetics.

Free will is relevant to libertarianism because it is one of it's axioms, and because it's false, libertarianism is false.

Aestheticbend

12-06-2007, 08:53 AM

Free will is relevant to libertarianism because it is one of it's axioms, and because it's false, libertarianism is false.

Actually it is not necessarily relevant to an Aristotleian brand of libertarianism. I will try to show that while personal responsibility cannot be retained with the dream of freewill, determinism actually gives a better account of the reasoning behind libertarianism. While it is an axiom to certain forms of libertarianism, it is not for all.

Firstly, I reject the ought/is dichotomy on the basis that a set of descriptive statements imply an ought.

For example
I value life
If I do not eat I cannot live

Therefore, I should take the steps necessary to gather food to fulfill my determined value. And the fact that I am free from external coercion allows me to attain this determined value, so therefore non-aggression is conducive with determinism. This could be viewed in a way similar to the greek notion of fulfilling a telos.

Lets try another one

People are determined to attain their values
Universality is necessary for a moral principle
Attaining these values is the only way that a person can give their life cognizant meaning

People should be allowed to attain their values and give their lives meaning, and to do this they should not be aggressed upon. Non-aggression is the condition for which a person can pursue their values which are determined.

Determinism is the only way of making sense of personal values, freewill is an incoherent idea, and while we cannot have done otherwise unless some determined or probabilistic consideration changed, the end that we achieve reflects our nature. And it is most conducive to that nature, to not be arbitrarilly aggressed upon. You cannot hold a person accountable in any sense of the term. But you can justifiably prevent them from doing it, or put things back the way they were.

Lucid

12-06-2007, 01:25 PM

Ridiculous. By showing that one thing does not have an effect, you do not show that other things don't have an effect. What about hormones, for example? Perhaps changes in behaviour caused by the position of the moon are so small they are not measurable?

Then they are also so small as to be irrelevant and not worth discussing. Certain behaviors of ours can be attributed to natural laws, but to say that because there are natural laws we must abide by and which affect our physiology precludes free will is a stretch that I think you would be hard pressed to find any credible evidence to support.

Says the one who believes in free will... You talk from a free will perspective. I am both a nihilist and determinist, still I think you might very well lock people up for pragmatic reasons, but it will never be because of some kind of objective justice. If my girlfriend cheats on me I know it will be for a reason, perhaps I am able to understand it, but I might very well be mad at her, for just being the person she is and because the illusion of her is broken. And yeah, I don't believe in personal responsibility, that being said, things happen because you are the person you are. But again, who you are, is just the playing out of environmental forces and genetics.

Free will is relevant to libertarianism because it is one of it's axioms, and because it's false, libertarianism is false.

To hold people accountable where there is no accountability is hypocracy and irrationality. You're trying to reconcile a nonsensical philosophy with reality and it fails. It's ridiculous to be angry at someone for breaking your illusion of them.

In conclusion, you are welcome to believe that we don't have free will, but you should be cautious before using physics to back this up.

Also, (and perhaps you are already aware of this. If so, forgive the reiteration) but it should be noted that Nietzsche himself was opposed to nihilism. He felt nihilism was a poisoning of the human spirit and said of it, "The pathos of 'in vain' is the nihilists' pathos — at the same time, as pathos, an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists."

Splittet

12-06-2007, 03:19 PM

Then they are also so small as to be irrelevant and not worth discussing. Certain behaviors of ours can be attributed to natural laws, but to say that because there are natural laws we must abide by and which affect our physiology precludes free will is a stretch that I think you would be hard pressed to find any credible evidence to support.

It’s more fundamental than that. My axiom is, everything is either caused or random. If something is caused, there is no free will. If something is random, there is no free will. Free will is something one easily take for granted, but when you really think about it, you realise it’s simply impossible.

To hold people accountable where there is no accountability is hypocracy and irrationality. You're trying to reconcile a nonsensical philosophy with reality and it fails. It's ridiculous to be angry at someone for breaking your illusion of them.

You must understand certain things. First of all, our lack of free will is theoretical, in real life, it is basically impossible to fully predict behaviour. In practical life you can therefore just ignore this theoretical fact to a certain degree. Another thing, as a nihilist, I believe no actions are wrong. Therefore it would be nothing wrong in holding someone accountable who is not accountable. Again you are looking at it from your perspective. To you it would be wrong, but from a nihilistic perspective, nothing is wrong. Also note the difference between what's rational and emotional. Perhaps I might not be able to say someone is responsible at a rational level, but I might very well feel it, and again, because nothing is wrong, that's not wrong either. Anyhow, my main idea was that one can rationally be angry because the world is not like you want it to be. No one is responsible, but you can still just be angry about it.

Also, (and perhaps you are already aware of this. If so, forgive the reiteration) but it should be noted that Nietzsche himself was opposed to nihilism. He felt nihilism was a poisoning of the human spirit and said of it, "The pathos of 'in vain' is the nihilists' pathos — at the same time, as pathos, an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists."

Nietzsche was opposed to passive nihilism, the depressive nihilism without hope. Nietzsche himself though, advocated active nihilism. Active nihilism is the creative nihilism, where a strong individual, creates his own values, his own purpose, and is creating the world in his own image. Quite similar to true LaVeyan satanism.

Lucid

12-06-2007, 08:47 PM

It’s more fundamental than that. My axiom is, everything is either caused or random. If something is caused, there is no free will. If something is random, there is no free will. Free will is something one easily take for granted, but when you really think about it, you realise it’s simply impossible.

I think you will change your mind about this as time passes. Causation or the lack thereof do not preclude free will. More importantly, I think you're confused about everything being either caused or random. You seem to be saying that causality implies some kind of design. I'd say that everything is caused, but that those causes are random.

Another thing, as a nihilist, I believe no actions are wrong. Therefore it would be nothing wrong in holding someone accountable who is not accountable.

But it would be illogical. You're confusing morality with sense.

Again you are looking at it from your perspective. To you it would be wrong, but from a nihilistic perspective, nothing is wrong.

Of course I'm looking at it from my perspective... but you're still confusing morality with sense.

Also note the difference between what's rational and emotional. Perhaps I might not be able to say someone is responsible at a rational level, but I might very well feel it, and again, because nothing is wrong, that's not wrong either.

sense and morality.

Anyhow, my main idea was that one can rationally be angry because the world is not like you want it to be. No one is responsible, but you can still just be angry about it.

There's a difference between being angry at a situation and angry at a person.

Nietzsche was opposed to passive nihilism, the depressive nihilism without hope. Nietzsche himself though, advocated active nihilism. Active nihilism is the creative nihilism, where a strong individual, creates his own values, his own purpose, and is creating the world in his own image. Quite similar to true LaVeyan satanism.

Nietzsche was opposed to nihilism. What you are describing is not nihilism. At least, it is not what Nietzsche would call nihilism. You are misusing the term.

I don't mean to insult you or your religion, but LaVeyan Satanism is (in my opinion) rather silly. It does hold some good tenets (personal responsibility being among the most important... which, I might add, requires free will), but on the whole it's just kind of hard to take seriously. I say this as a former LaVeyan Satanist. :)

Splittet

12-07-2007, 02:55 AM

I think you will change your mind about this as time passes. Causation or the lack thereof do not preclude free will. More importantly, I think you're confused about everything being either caused or random. You seem to be saying that causality implies some kind of design. I'd say that everything is caused, but that those causes are random.

Just because you can't predicte everything, doesn't mean it's random. I only mentioned randomness because of quantum mechanics.

But it would be illogical. You're confusing morality with sense.

sense and morality.

I don't know what you mean by sense. Anyhow, it is my opinion no morals has any objective foundation. Where are these moral laws written? According to me, there is nothing wrong in killing, raping or whatever else is generally considered unmoral. That doesn't mean there is anything just or right about it either though.

Of course I'm looking at it from my perspective... but you're still confusing morality with sense.

When you look at another perspective, you can't mix it up with your own and then argument against it, of course it becomes false then.

Of There's a difference between being angry at a situation and angry at a person.

Well, another aspect is that I have grown up with free will, it is part of my emotions. Again, rationally I cannot be mad at a person, but my emotional response is beyond this.

Nietzsche was opposed to nihilism. What you are describing is not nihilism. At least, it is not what Nietzsche would call nihilism. You are misusing the term.

Or perhaps I am more knowledgeable than you about this specific topic?

Passive nihilsim is indicative of a decline in spiritual power. It is characterized by the inability to create, or in the extreme to react. The passive nihilist is one who, when faced with the world's uncertainty, withdraws and refuses to enagage the world. For him, uncertainty is a sufficient condition not to proceed through life, and so paralysed by fear of the unknown and unknowable he does nothing. Nietzsche described this condition as ".. the weary nihilism that no longer attacks..a passive nihilism, a sign of weakness".

Active Nihilism on the other hand, is indicative of a relative increase in spiritual power. the active nihilist sees freedom where the passive nihilist sees absurdity or meaninglessness. He chooses action and creation instead of passivity and withdrawal. For him, the lack of objective standards of truth motivates self created standards and criteria. The active nihilist is not active despite the unknown but because of it. He possesses a store of creative energy and power which allows him to impose personal meaning on the world while never forgetting that hes is the source and progenitor of that meaning. He is heroic in this sense, facing the world with courage and purpose.

The übermensch is an active nihilist.

I don't mean to insult you or your religion, but LaVeyan Satanism is (in my opinion) rather silly. It does hold some good tenets (personal responsibility being among the most important... which, I might add, requires free will), but on the whole it's just kind of hard to take seriously. I say this as a former LaVeyan Satanist. :)

I am not a LaVeyan Satanist, and never have been. I really doubt you were it in the true sense, since most that identify as LaVeyan Satanists are not true, according to me. I am a self-learned nihilist.

Lucid

12-07-2007, 03:39 PM

Just because you can't predicte everything, doesn't mean it's random. I only mentioned randomness because of quantum mechanics.

I think you're using these terms in a different way than I am. Or are possibly misunderstanding my argument.

I don't know what you mean by sense. Anyhow, it is my opinion no morals has any objective foundation. Where are these moral laws written? According to me, there is nothing wrong in killing, raping or whatever else is generally considered unmoral. That doesn't mean there is anything just or right about it either though.

By sense I mean it is nonsensical. It doesn't make rational or logical sense. Why would you be angry at someone for something which they cannot control? It's nonsensical.

When you look at another perspective, you can't mix it up with your own and then argument against it, of course it becomes false then.

An argument is two opposing perspectives.

Or perhaps I am more knowledgeable than you about this specific topic?

It's possible. But my minor is philosophy and have studied this in school. This certainly doesn't make me an expert, but I have learned something about it and from quite credible sources.
It may be that you know more about it than I do, but I question the credibility of your sources. It seems like this "active nihilism" thing is something based loosely on Nietzsche, but is a term for a belief system that has sprung up recently. That's fine, you can call yourself whatever you wish, but I think you should expect that people will try to inform you that Nietzsche was opposed to nihilism.

I am not a LaVeyan Satanist, and never have been. I really doubt you were it in the true sense, since most that identify as LaVeyan Satanists are not true, according to me. I am a self-learned nihilist.

Be careful making judgments about things and people you know little about. To say that you "really doubt you were in the true sense" reeks of unjustified arrogance.

Also, saying "most that identify as LaVeyan Satanists are not true, according to me." is violating your own argument against arguments based on perspective.
You seem moderately intelligent, but arrogant in a way that makes me think you're very young. There's nothing wrong with being young and I wouldn't discount your points based on your age alone. We have many younger members who make good contributions to the forum and who have well thought out and informed opinions. However, I would suggest to you that this type of arrogance is a weakness. I hope you are able to move past it.

The Many

12-07-2007, 04:35 PM

I think you're using these terms in a different way than I am. Or are possibly misunderstanding my argument.

By sense I mean it is nonsensical. It doesn't make rational or logical sense. Why would you be angry at someone for something which they cannot control? It's nonsensical.

An argument is two opposing perspectives.

It's possible. But my minor is philosophy and have studied this in school. This certainly doesn't make me an expert, but I have learned something about it and from quite credible sources.
It may be that you know more about it than I do, but I question the credibility of your sources. It seems like this "active nihilism" thing is something based loosely on Nietzsche, but is a term for a belief system that has sprung up recently. That's fine, you can call yourself whatever you wish, but I think you should expect that people will try to inform you that Nietzsche was opposed to nihilism.

Be careful making judgments about things and people you know little about. To say that you "really doubt you were in the true sense" reeks of unjustified arrogance.

Also, saying "most that identify as LaVeyan Satanists are not true, according to me." is violating your own argument against arguments based on perspective.
You seem moderately intelligent, but arrogant in a way that makes me think you're very young. There's nothing wrong with being young and I wouldn't discount your points based on your age alone. We have many younger members who make good contributions to the forum and who have well thought out and informed opinions. However, I would suggest to you that this type of arrogance is a weakness. I hope you are able to move past it.

Hah! I was just about to start arguing here, but it seems like you already did the work for me. Cheers to you!

I should add one thing though - this "active nihilism" that is being spoken of is nothing else than existentialism. To be fair though, I loved the term "nihilism" when I was younger too. It has a certain ring to it, but still it doesn't work out when confronting the real world (even though this version admittedly is better than what the nutcases at To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. are doing...). It seems to me that many young INTJs tend to build very strange worldviews.

Lucid

12-07-2007, 05:15 PM

Hah! I was just about to start arguing here, but it seems like you already did the work for me. Cheers to you!

I should add one thing though - this "active nihilism" that is being spoken of is nothing else than existentialism. To be fair though, I loved the term "nihilism" when I was younger too. It has a certain ring to it, but still it doesn't work out when confronting the real world (even though this version admittedly is better than what the nutcases at To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. are doing...). It seems to me that many young INTJs tend to build very strange worldviews.

I completely agree with you about young INTJs and strange worldviews. I was one of them myself.
And I think you're right about it being existentialism in a different wrapper.

Splittet

12-07-2007, 05:55 PM

I think you're using these terms in a different way than I am. Or are possibly misunderstanding my argument.

Sure we use the terms in different ways, but I think your way is flawed, while mine is correct. I guess that is the typical intellectual INTJ arrogance for you.

By sense I mean it is nonsensical. It doesn't make rational or logical sense. Why would you be angry at someone for something which they cannot control? It's nonsensical.

Sure, I am not saying it is rational at all. That being said, in a sense, nothing is contrary to nihilism.

It's possible. But my minor is philosophy and have studied this in school. This certainly doesn't make me an expert, but I have learned something about it and from quite credible sources.
It may be that you know more about it than I do, but I question the credibility of your sources. It seems like this "active nihilism" thing is something based loosely on Nietzsche, but is a term for a belief system that has sprung up recently. That's fine, you can call yourself whatever you wish, but I think you should expect that people will try to inform you that Nietzsche was opposed to nihilism.

I know Nietzsche was opposed to nihilism, but the passive kind. When people think about nihilism they usually think about passive nihilism. But there is something called active nihilism, and Nietzsche advocated it. That being said, passive and active nihilism is very different, almost opposites, make no mistake about this. I know very well Nietzsche hated passive nihilism. I think it is actually Nietzsche himself that invented the terms active and passive nihilism. I agree active nihilism is a kind of existentialism, but very different from for example Sartre's existentialism. Article on the subject: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Nihilism as a normal condition.
It can be a sign of strength: the spirit may have grown so strong that previous goals ("convictions," articles of faith) have become incommensurate (for a faith generally expresses the constraint of conditions of existence, submission to the authority of circumstances under which one flourishes, grows, gains power). Or a sign of the lack of strength to posit for oneself, productively, a goal, a why, a faith.
It reaches its maximum of relative strength as a violent force of destruction-as active nihilism.
Its opposite: the weary nihilism that no longer attacks; its most famous form, Buddhism; a passive nihilism, a sign of weakness. The strength of the spirit may be worn out, exhausted, so that previous goals and values have become incommensurate and no longer are believed; so that the synthesis of values and goals (on which every strong culture rests) dissolves and the individual values war against each other: disintegration-and whatever refreshes, heals, calms, numbs emerges into the foreground in various disguises, religious or moral, or political, or aesthetic, etc.

Be careful making judgments about things and people you know little about. To say that you "really doubt you were in the true sense" reeks of unjustified arrogance.

Also, saying "most that identify as LaVeyan Satanists are not true, according to me." is violating your own argument against arguments based on perspective.
You seem moderately intelligent, but arrogant in a way that makes me think you're very young. There's nothing wrong with being young and I wouldn't discount your points based on your age alone. We have many younger members who make good contributions to the forum and who have well thought out and informed opinions. However, I would suggest to you that this type of arrogance is a weakness. I hope you are able to move past it.

I never made a judgement, I just said I suspected you were not a true LeVayen Satanist by my standards–extremely few are. If you were a true LeVayen Satanist, by my standards, you would still be one. My IQ is about 125 by the way, and I am 19 years old, and Norwegian, so English is not my mother tongue. What you think of as arrogance, is just the typical intellectual INTJ arrogance I mentioned, nearly every INTJ has it. Nihilism is one of my "expert fields", and INTJs tend to be very confident about these.

The Many

12-07-2007, 05:57 PM

I completely agree with you about young INTJs and strange worldviews. I was one of them myself.
And I think you're right about it being existentialism in a different wrapper.

Yeah, exactly. I'm right there with the worldview thing myself too. As to existentialism, Nietzsche is often considered an existentialist in the same way that Splittet here is referring to the übermensch, so that's more or less where it's at.

EDIT: Splittet - what you call "active nihilism" is in fact Nietzsche's way of coping with a godless existence, which is pure existentialism. Not nihilism at all.

Splittet

12-07-2007, 06:07 PM

EDIT: Splittet - what you call "active nihilism" is in fact Nietzsche's way of coping with a godless existence, which is pure existentialism. Not nihilism at all.

It is both. Do not make the mistake to think "active nihilism" is a term invented by me, as you can see, it was invented by Nietzsche. There is nothing wrong in using it, and it is more specific than just existentialism, which can be a lot of things. It is more precise.

Personally I am a weak passive nihilist, by the way, unable to turn myself into an active nihilist, to fill my existence with my own values and purpose.

The Many

12-07-2007, 06:23 PM

It is both. Do not make the mistake to think "active nihilism" is a term invented by me, as you can see, it was invented by Nietzsche. There is nothing wrong in using it, and it is more specific than just existentialism, which can be a lot of things. It is more precise.

Ehrm. If "active nihilism" was invented by Nietzsche you need to give me a source on that. Considering how much I have read by and about him it's strange that I have never seen it used by him or anyone even mentioning him talking about it.

I do agree in that it is more specific and that it would perhaps be worth using, if it wasn't for the fact that it is not what the term nihilism traditionally has meant - not to mention that existentialism always has been used to cover what you mean with it, so I see no real reason to add another distinction.

Splittet

12-07-2007, 06:27 PM

Ehrm. If "active nihilism" was invented by Nietzsche you need to give me a source on that. Considering how much I have read by and about him it's strange that I have never seen it used by him or anyone even mentioning him talking about it.

I do agree in that it is more specific and that it would perhaps be worth using, if it wasn't for the fact that it is not what the term nihilism traditionally has meant - not to mention that existentialism always has been used to cover what you mean with it, so I see no real reason to add another distinction.

Just think about it this way, the übermensch is the archetype of an active nihilist... Read the quote from The Will to Power, and just Google the term. It's not a term mentioned very often in his books, I guess he just mostly talks about the übermensch. (I have only read Thus Spoke Zarathustra.)

Personally I think active nihilism is an extremely useful term, partly because you know it is Nietzsche's kind of existentialism one is talking about. And again, it is quite a lot more aggressive than your usual kind of existentialism, a lot more extreme. The whole idea of the übermensch is extreme... But that's why we love Nietzsche in the first place. Me anyway. :P

I am sorry this is kind of far removed from the topic, but it's hard to shut up, when you are basically obsessed about something.

The Many

12-07-2007, 07:04 PM

Just think about it this way, the übermensch is the archetype of an active nihilist... Read the quote from The Will to Power, and just Google the term. It's not a term mentioned very often in his books, I guess he just mostly talks about the übermensch. (I have only read Thus Spoke Zarathustra.)

Personally I think active nihilism is an extremely useful term, partly because you know it is Nietzsche's kind of existentialism one is talking about. And again, it is quite a lot more aggressive than your usual kind of existentialism, a lot more extreme. The whole idea of the übermensch is extreme... But that's why we love Nietzsche in the first place. Me anyway. :P

I am sorry this is kind of far removed from the topic, but it's hard to shut up, when you are basically obsessed about something.

Regardless of what is said in The Will To Power it cannot be trusted, due to his sister having compiled and edited it. And "I guess" and "mostly" do not cut it here either, I'm afraid - the distinction you mention there is unfortunately not valid from a bigger picture perspective (i.e. existentialism vs. nihilism), even though I get what you mean when you use it.

Speaking about Nietzsche though, he was one of the first philosophers I read too, and he did have quite a few interesting ideas which I have built much thought on. Still I recommend you try to read some others as well, since broadening your picture is always a good thing.

Splittet

12-07-2007, 07:39 PM

Regardless of what is said in The Will To Power it cannot be trusted, due to his sister having compiled and edited it. And "I guess" and "mostly" do not cut it here either, I'm afraid - the distinction you mention there is unfortunately not valid from a bigger picture perspective (i.e. existentialism vs. nihilism), even though I get what you mean when you use it.

I know about this. This quote can be trusted though. First of all, I think The Will to Power has been revised again in modern time (not sure), and second and most importantly, these are not the kind of things his sister changed anyway. And again, you fail to realize active nihilism is completely different from what is usually called nihilism, which is passive nihilism. You see the word in front of "nihilism", right? Just accept active nihilism is extremely different from what is normally called nihilism. Just some articles using the terms active and passive nihilism:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Speaking about Nietzsche though, he was one of the first philosophers I read too, and he did have quite a few interesting ideas which I have built much thought on. Still I recommend you try to read some others as well, since broadening your picture is always a good thing.

I became a nihilist before I even read Nietzsche. Why do you assume nihilism is the only thing I know anything about? You even seem to think I don't know much about that. I have read two books on general philosophy, and Sophie's World, which also gives an introduction to the history of philosophy. Moreover, I have read tons about different philosophies online. Once upon a time I was a libertarian, but as I examined its axioms, I realised they are bullshit. I realised morality has no foundation, and that's where my nihilism began. When you realise morality has no foundation, there really is not much left except nihilism.

prometheus

12-07-2007, 07:54 PM

A couple quick question for splittet.

How did you realize there is no morality?

Which part(s) of libertarianism do you fell are BS

Do you think your particular brand of philosophy needs to be more generally adopted?

Please be specific.

Splittet

12-07-2007, 08:03 PM

How did you realize there is no morality?

What I realised was that morality has no foundation. There are no objective moral laws written anywhere. Morals are completely relative, created by humans. If you imagine the cosmos, you might get a sense of how meaningless our existence is, and how meaningless humans are. The whole universe is just one gigantic machine. This is an axiom however, it cannot be proven or disproved, but it is my clear belief. I guess it is what my intuition tells me is true. Choosing between axioms, one always has to use intuition in the end, it is the nature of philosophy, the questions raised has no certain answers. If they had, it wouldn't be philosophy, but science.

Which part(s) of libertarianism do you fell are BS

Free will is an illusion. A human being has no objective value. Natural rights are an illusion, with no foundation. All the axioms are basically wrong. Actually for a period I was quite into Objectivism and Ayn Rand.

Do you think your particular brand of philosophy needs to be more generally adopted?

Not really. Truth is overrated anyway. I am sure you agree if nihilism is true? Then you would rather live under the illusion it’s false, right? Personally I consider myself a slave to truth, so I am not able to, at the moment anyway.

prometheus

12-07-2007, 08:08 PM

What I realised was that morality has no foundation. There are no objective moral laws written anywhere. Morals are completely relative, created by humans. If you imagine the cosmos, you might get a sense of how meaningless our existence is, and how meaningless humans are. The whole universe is just one gigantic machine. This is an axiom however, it cannot be proven or disproved, but it is my clear believe.

Free will is an illusion. A human being has no objective value. Natural rights are an illusion, with no foundation. All the axioms are basically wrong. Actually for a period I was quite into Objectivism and Ayn Rand.

Not really. Truth is overrated anyway. I am sure you agree if nihilism is true? Then you would rather live under the illusion it’s false, right? Personally I consider myself a slave to truth, so I am not able to, at the moment anyway.

What was the event(s) that led up to your "epiphany"? Can you explain why you believe what you believe? Are you working from some non-logic based faith/religious view?

The Many

12-07-2007, 08:14 PM

I know about this. This quote can be trusted though. First of all, I think The Will to Power has been revised again in modern time (not sure), and second and most importantly, these are not the kind of things his sister changed anyway. And again, you fail to realize active nihilism is completely different from what is usually called nihilism, which is passive nihilism. You see the word in front of "nihilism", right? Just accept active nihilism is extremely different from what is normally called nihilism.

I became a nihilist before I even read Nietzsche. Why do you assume nihilism is the only thing I know anything about? You even seem to think I don't know much about that. I have read two books on general philosophy, and Sophie's World, which also gives an introduction to the history of philosophy. Moreover, I have read tons about different philosophies online. Once upon a time I was a libertarian, but as I examined its axioms, I realised they are bullshit. I realised morality has no foundation, and that's where my nihilism began. When you realise morality has no foundation, there really is not much left except nihilism.

How do you know his sister didn't change this quotation? Anyway I DO see the difference, but I also don't see a point in making this definition, since it really lies at the core of most everything that has been written since Nietzsche anyway. I don't mean to sound rude or anything now; just remember not to try to judge a situation like this before you have taken in all the facts. I decided to act INTP (that is to say, not judge before I had read enough) before starting to read philosophy in general and it helped me immensely.

EDIT: I saw the links you posted, fine. The term has been used, I was wrong there, but obviously not to such an extent that it is particularly important. It is, as the second link mentioned, a phase to be passed, since it is impossible to live without morality (see below). And indeed, passing this state is Nietzsche's existentialism.

As to the second paragraph, once again please don't judge anything before you know all the facts. I never claimed that you hadn't read anything else, only that reading different things always is good - you always benefit from seeing as many points of view as possible. Still, you are right in that morality lacks an objective foundation (at least that we have found so far). Ironically enough though, at the core of my philosophy lies the establishing of an adequate subjective morality, since it is impossible to live without any form of morality, for that is pure nihilism in the sense that everyone else than you understand the word. And nihilism is in itself self-contradictory, since its claim that there are values makes it a valuation itself. And to clarify, by morality I mean a conscious goal, that is, a rule, to strive for.

Splittet

12-07-2007, 08:14 PM

What was the event(s) that led up to your "epiphany"? Can you explain why you believe what you believe? Are you working from some non-logic based faith/religious view?

I am an atheist. Was I depressed at the time? Yes. Did it have anything to do with me becoming a nihilist? Not much. The thought of the nihilism had matured in me for a long while, but my girlfriend kept my thoughts on other issues. Then we broke up, and I had a great philosophical period, where I thought more carefully about the subject, and finally came to a conclusion. It is my clear belief it was only a matter of time before I became a nihilist. This is one and a half year ago. At the moment I am not really depressed, and I am still a nihilist. To me it's not an emotional thing at all, but purely intellectual.

How do you know his sister didn't change this quotation? Anyway I DO see the difference, but I also don't see a point in making this definition, since it really lies at the core of most everything that has been written since Nietzsche anyway. I don't mean to sound rude or anything now; just remember not to try to judge a situation like this before you have taken in all the facts. I decided to act INTP (that is to say, not judge before I had read enough) before starting to read philosophy in general and it helped me immensely.

I have discussed Nietzsche a lot, and when discussing Nietzsche, I find it to be an extremely useful term. The term is new to you, perhaps when you understand it better, and with time, you will start using it yourself. It is true I haven't researched it’s legitimacy extensively, but firstly I find the term useful even if it's not from Nietzsche, and I never had any reason to suspect it to be false. The fact it is used in a lot of university papers, seem to suggest to me it is not very controversial, and I have never read anything about it being controversial. As an INTJ, things only need to seem logical to me, you know. ;) If I researched everything as extensively as you might be interpreted to suggest I should, I would have no time at my hand, and probably become paranoid and schizophrenic.

As to the second paragraph, once again please don't judge anything before you know all the facts. I never claimed that you hadn't read anything else, only that reading different things always is good - you always benefit from seeing as many points of view as possible. Still, you are right in that morality lacks an objective foundation (at least that we have found so far). Ironically enough though, at the core of my philosophy lies the establishing of an adequate subjective morality, since it is impossible to live without any form of morality, for that is pure nihilism in the sense that everyone else than you understand the word. And nihilism is in itself self-contradictory, since its claim that there are values makes it a valuation itself. And to clarify, by morality I mean a conscious goal, that is, a rule, to strive for.

Sorry I was a bit harsh in that second paragraph. In my mind, I only meant to criticise how what you wrote might be interpreted, not really what I thought your opinion was. It didn't come across at all. By the way, my ability to see different perspectives is excellent. And yes, I find it to be an extremely useful talent. That being said, I am not claiming to exhibit the talent in this thread.

Splittet

12-07-2007, 08:38 PM

Scandinavian countries have the highest tax rates in the WORLD. Denmark's tax rate was 49.7% of GDP back in 2005 (the most recent #'s I found) Source (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) I honestly don't know how people manage to survive when nearly half (by now probably more than half) of the GDP is going into bureaucracy.

You are so extremely prejudiced. I think I know more about how it is in Denmark and Scandinavia, since I am Norwegian and live in yes, Scandinavia. Yes, taxes are high, but you know, we don't have to pay for health care, schools are free and so on... Also, minimum wages are much higher than in the US.

The Many

12-07-2007, 08:39 PM

I have discussed Nietzsche a lot, and when discussing Nietzsche, I find it to be an extremely useful term. The term is new to you, perhaps when you understand it better, and with time, you will start using it yourself. It is true I haven't researched it’s legitimacy extensively, but firstly I find the term useful even if it's not from Nietzsche, and I never had any reason to suspect it to be false. The fact it is used in a lot of university papers, seem to suggest to me it is not very controversial, and I have never read anything about it being controversial. As an INTJ, things only need to seem logical to me, you know. ;) If I researched everything as extensively as you might be interpreted to suggest I should, I would have no time at my hand, and probably become paranoid and schizophrenic.

Sorry I was a bit harsh in that second paragraph. In my mind, I only meant to criticise how what you wrote might be interpreted, not really what I thought your opinion was. It didn't come across at all. By the way, my ability to see different perspectives is excellent. And yes, I find it to be an extremely useful talent. That being said, I am not claiming to exhibit the talent in this thread.

See the edits I did in the last post. No further comments are necessary here, I think... :). The problem with Nietzsche is that regardless of how much you read about him there is always a new quote that seems to pop up somewhere...

prometheus

12-07-2007, 08:43 PM

Yes, taxes are high, but you know, we don't have to pay for health care, schools are free and so on...

Oh, you are paying for it Bubba. With half of every Krone you produce.

The Scandinavian countries are an anomaly, they are the only socialist countries that HAVEN'T failed.

Splittet

12-07-2007, 08:49 PM

By the way, if you Google "active passive nihilism" you get 141 000 hits ... That's quite a lot. "nihilism" gets 285 000 hits ... About half of those pages include the words "passive" and "active" then, so indeed it seems to be quite important terms.

Oh, you are paying for it Bubba. With half of every Krone you produce.

The Scandinavian countries are an anomaly, they are the only socialist countries that HAVEN'T failed.

Note these countries are social democratic (mostly anyway), a lot of Western Europe is, like Germany. And has Western Europe failed?

I realise we pay for these services, but so does you, just not through taxes, but other channels. When taxes are paid in Norway, we are more free to use our money the way we want than in the US, where health insurence costs a lot and so on.

I must say though, not bad knowing what a krone is. ;)

The Many

12-07-2007, 09:03 PM

By the way, if you Google "active passive nihilism" you get 141 000 hits ... That's quite a lot. "nihilism" gets 285 000 hits ... About half of those pages include the words "passive" and "active" then, so indeed it seems to be quite important terms.

When you google "active nihilism" you get 3090 hits, but when you google "passive nihilism" you get 4320 hits. Passive and active doesn't necessarily have to be in context in the sites you mentioned.

Splittet

12-07-2007, 09:25 PM

When you google "active nihilism" you get 3090 hits, but when you google "passive nihilism" you get 4320 hits. Passive and active doesn't necessarily have to be in context in the sites you mentioned.

I never claimed it did ... But anyhow the facts remain that it is terms used quite often.

The Many

12-07-2007, 09:41 PM

I never claimed it did ... But anyhow the facts remain that it is terms used quite often.

No, you didn't claim so, you claimed misleading statistics, but either way it depends on what you mean with quite often. Often enough to be worth noticing, that much I can give you, but still not particularly often. But this discussion is turning into sandbox level now, so let's just not continue hijacking this thread.

Lucid

12-08-2007, 12:39 AM

My IQ is about 125 by the way, and I am 19 years old, and Norwegian, so English is not my mother tongue. What you think of as arrogance, is just the typical intellectual INTJ arrogance I mentioned, nearly every INTJ has it. Nihilism is one of my "expert fields", and INTJs tend to be very confident about these.

I'm not a Levayan Satanist anymore because it's freaking silly and I grew up. Someday (and I mean no offense) you'll probably know what I mean. Although I'm sure you hate it now when people say that to you. I sure did when I was 19, but I mean no offense by it.

You seem to have taken what I said as criticism. Your age is somewhat irrelevant to your argument. Like I said, I wouldn't discount you or what you say because you're young. But I think that your age has something to do with why you believe what you do. That's why I brought it up. Being 19 is nothing to be ashamed of or offended about when people bring it up.

My IQ is about 125 by the way, and I am 19 years old

that's nice. Mine is 165 and I'm 27. It means nothing. Whose IQ is higher is not necessarily an indicator of who's more correct in an argument. While 125 is certainly above average and nothing to be scoffed at, you should be wary, when you bring this up, that you may be trumped.

is just the typical intellectual INTJ arrogance I mentioned, nearly every INTJ has it.

You should refer to the thread about people using MBTI type to excuse personality flaws. Maybe a lot of INTJs (and other types) are arrogant. Doesn't mean it isn't a weakness, and just because it's common among a certain type is no excuse. Use the fact that your type indicates that you may be predisposed towards arrogance as a tool to overcome a weakness. I think you'll find that using MBTI in this way will benefit you.

and Norwegian, so English is not my mother tongue.

Well here you may have a point. If I've misunderstood the tone of your posts then I apologize for calling you arrogant.

Sure we use the terms in different ways, but I think your way is flawed, while mine is correct.

There may be something to your statement on INTJ arrogance in this sense because I feel the same way :) But physics, like philosophy, is something that can be misunderstood easily. An education isn't the end all, be all trump card, but I will put my faith in the PhDs who taught me both philosophy and (a bit of) physics over your (apparent) self education. If you have some formal education on these topics then I'll withdraw this statement. And I hope you understand why I feel that way and won't take it as a personal insult.
I don't mean to knock self education, as I think it's better than no education, and I'll say again that I'm no expert and so it's possible you're correct (although I don't think so). But I hope you'll understand if I defer to the opinions of people who do this (both physics and philosophy) for a living and went to school for a very long time for it. And the fact that I have yet to meet a physicist who would argue against free will based on natural laws.

These kind of discussions does however have the tendency to bring non-existant differences of opinion to light, partly because things are lost in translation, and because we have the tendency to interpret what others write in a quite paranoid fashion.

While I still disagree with your point about nihilism and free will I do find this to be insightful. It is the reason my posts are often interspersed with apologies and "no offense, but..." statements. Also, I'm rather used to people taking a criticism of their ideas as a criticism of them, personally.

Prometheus and Lights, I think your dynamic on this forum is fascinating. It seems that there are so many threads in which the two of you argue. From the outside, it's rather entertaining (in a good way).

Splittet

12-08-2007, 02:34 AM

I'm not a Levayan Satanist anymore because it's freaking silly and I grew up. Someday (and I mean no offense) you'll probably know what I mean. Although I'm sure you hate it now when people say that to you. I sure did when I was 19, but I mean no offense by it.

I certainly do not feel my nihilism is something I will grow out of, or at least the realisation there is no objective right or wrong or purpose. That is something I think I will have to live with for the rest of my life. That being said, hopefully I will find some kind of subjective meaning, and thereby rise above my passive nihilism. I don't like my nihilism, but I seem firmly stuck in it.

You seem to have taken what I said as criticism. Your age is somewhat irrelevant to your argument. Like I said, I wouldn't discount you or what you say because you're young. But I think that your age has something to do with why you believe what you do. That's why I brought it up. Being 19 is nothing to be ashamed of or offended about when people bring it up.

Perhaps I was to a certain degree, because I don't want to be compared to Levayan Satanists at all. Most "Levayan Satanists" are pathetic. As you, when they "grow up", most begins to abide by the rules of society again. I see that as a weakness, and I think it just show how immature that period of Satanism tends to be. My nihilism came through my own research, and I am utterly alone about it. I was not influenced by any other persons to come to my believes, while most "Levayan Satanists" heard about it through others, and became part of a social network.

that's nice. Mine is 165 and I'm 27. It means nothing. Whose IQ is higher is not necessarily an indicator of who's more correct in an argument. While 125 is certainly above average and nothing to be scoffed at, you should be wary, when you bring this up, that you may be trumped.

I was just stating the relevant facts about my intelligence and age. I didn't do so because I thought I would be "better" than you, actually I didn't think about it at all. Although I am more intelligent, in the IQ sense, than 95 % of the general population, I am probably not more intelligent than half on the people on this board. And intelligence is certainly not knowledge, so in a discussion, the one with the lower IQ might beat the crap out of the one with the higher IQ, if he knows a lot more on the topic.

You should refer to the thread about people using MBTI type to excuse personality flaws. Maybe a lot of INTJs (and other types) are arrogant. Doesn't mean it isn't a weakness, and just because it's common among a certain type is no excuse. Use the fact that your type indicates that you may be predisposed towards arrogance as a tool to overcome a weakness. I think you'll find that using MBTI in this way will benefit you.

I don't see it as a flaw, I merely wanted to point out why you might feel I was being arrogant. I think it is a very interesting characteristic of almost all INTJs, and it is very distinct and peculiar. Generally I consider myself as a person with not much confidence, really, but I do have the INTJ confidence in my "expert fields", and the typical INTJ attitude I am better than most. It's a character flaw from most perspectives, personally I disagree.

There may be something to your statement on INTJ arrogance in this sense because I feel the same way :) But physics, like philosophy, is something that can be misunderstood easily. An education isn't the end all, be all trump card, but I will put my faith in the PhDs who taught me both philosophy and (a bit of) physics over your (apparent) self education. If you have some formal education on these topics then I'll withdraw this statement. And I hope you understand why I feel that way and won't take it as a personal insult.
I don't mean to knock self education, as I think it's better than no education, and I'll say again that I'm no expert and so it's possible you're correct (although I don't think so). But I hope you'll understand if I defer to the opinions of people who do this (both physics and philosophy) for a living and went to school for a very long time for it. And the fact that I have yet to meet a physicist who would argue against free will based on natural laws.

Physicists are not philosophers. The most widespread opinion out there is free will exist. I once took free will for granted, but in the end I had an aha moment, and now I cannot even imagine free will. That being said, the random element in quantum physics might serve as a useful reminder not everything is possible to imagine. I mean, how the hell do you imagine randomness? I find it impossible, I can only think it is. Anyhow I can relate a lot to compatibilism, but I do not think what they call free will is really free will. But that's just a minor detail, that has to do with how you use words, and not really that much to do with your perspective.

Lucid

12-08-2007, 12:12 PM

I was just stating the relevant facts about my intelligence and age.

But they aren't relevant, as you say yourself here:

And intelligence is certainly not knowledge, so in a discussion, the one with the lower IQ might beat the crap out of the one with the higher IQ, if he knows a lot more on the topic.

I don't see it as a flaw, I merely wanted to point out why you might feel I was being arrogant. I think it is a very interesting characteristic of almost all INTJs, and it is very distinct and peculiar. Generally I consider myself as a person with not much confidence, really, but I do have the INTJ confidence in my "expert fields", and the typical INTJ attitude I am better than most. It's a character flaw from most perspectives, personally I disagree.

Arrogance prevents you from learning. It alienates people from your ideas, making any kind of communication useless. Arrogance has a connotation of being undeservedly full of yourself. Emphasis on the undeservedly. That's why it's a flaw. There's a huge difference between the word confidence and the word arrogance.

Physicists are not philosophers.

So you're saying that physicists aren't capable of coming up with this free will theory, but you are? You do them a great disservice and you are mistaken. They are as much philosophers as you are.

My nihilism came through my own research, and I am utterly alone about it. I was not influenced by any other persons to come to my believes

Your nihilism came from Nietzsche originally, but the form you believe in, this "active nihilism" is really just existentialism in an edgier sounding wrapper.

I would suggest that you learn more about both philosophy and physics.

Splittet

12-08-2007, 01:15 PM

But they aren't relevant, as you say yourself here:

The thing is you said I seemed moderately intelligent and young. I just wanted to get the facts on the table, nothing more too it.

Arrogance prevents you from learning. It alienates people from your ideas, making any kind of communication useless. Arrogance has a connotation of being undeservedly full of yourself. Emphasis on the undeservedly. That's why it's a flaw. There's a huge difference between the word confidence and the word arrogance.

I am not arrogant, I consider myself humble. What I describe, is what is easily perceived as arrogance. Everything is not as it seems though. That is my perspective. I am sure you still think I am arrogant.

Has there been much to learn in this debate? Not so far, I already know the arguments reasonably well, and I feel no one has brought anything new to my attention.

So you're saying that physicists aren't capable of coming up with this free will theory, but you are? You do them a great disservice and you are mistaken. They are as much philosophers as you are.

Some physicists are greater philosophers than me, some are worse. That being said, the problem of free will is a philosophical one, it is not physics. Therefore it is not part of the expert field of a physicist.

Your nihilism came from Nietzsche originally, but the form you believe in, this "active nihilism" is really just existentialism in an edgier sounding wrapper.

I would suggest that you learn more about both philosophy and physics.

I meant I was not influenced by any persons in my life, of course I have been influenced by what I have read. And what we read is always written by someone, and I am influenced by these persons.

I only really began to study Nietzsche after I became a nihilist, by the way. To me, active nihilism is an ideal. An ideal I am unable to reach. I am a passive nihilist in existential despair. And again, is really the terms we use that important? It is just words. What words we use are not what is important, but the ideas. Can't we just agree both the terms I use and you use are correct? I fully agree active nihilism is a kind of existentialism, as I have said earlier.

I always want to learn more about philosophy, I still have lots to learn, but I am kind of full of physics. Physics is not very relevant to my argument against free will. The only thing is, I can't say everything is caused because of quantum mechanics, which only is probabilistic in nature. It is a detail, not important in the big picture. Some gravely misinterpret the randomness of quantum mechanics into being an argument for free will though, while in reality it is completely irrelevant. I am sure we agree.

That being said, I have speculated that if God existed, perhaps he ruled the world through the apparent randomness of quantum mechanics? That would be ironic, influencing and ruling the world only at the very smallest possible level.

Lucid

12-08-2007, 01:42 PM

The thing is you said I seemed moderately intelligent and young. I just wanted to get the facts on the table, nothing more too it.

I see.

I am not arrogant, I consider myself humble. What I describe, is what is easily perceived as arrogance. Everything is not as it seems though. That is my perspective. I am sure you still think I am arrogant.

Yes, but it's mostly because of this:

Some physicists are greater philosophers than me, some are worse. That being said, the problem of free will is a philosophical one, it is not physics. Therefore it is not part of the expert field of a physicist.

Many physicists have done just as much, if not more, studying of the field of philosophy as you have.

I meant I was not influenced by any persons in my life, of course I have been influenced by what I have read. And what we read is always written by someone, and I am influenced by these persons.

Then your arguments against satanism are flawed because you are generalizing and assuming. Most satanists learn it from a book.
What we read and what we learn from others often amounts to the same thing, just the method of delivery of information is different. You may already agree.

Basically, all I'm saying is that as most people get older, they get a better idea of just how much they don't know (immeasurable amounts) and so are less likely to say things like, "This is how it is and everything else is wrong. I have come to these conclusions, and I know what I'm talking about!" about subjects like the ones we're discussing. That's a bit how you're coming off. Although, maybe I'm misinterpreting you.

My experiences and my own thoughts and study of the matter leads me to believe in free will. But I'm aware of the fact that I may be wrong. You're entitled to your belief about free will and I'm sure that you have some valid reasons for believing as you do, but I'd suggest a bit less certainty about that or about many of the other blanket statements or judgments you've made in your posts.

So that's what I mean when I say young and arrogant. And that's the basis of my issue with everything you've stated. Do we have free will? Maybe not, it doesn't change how I get out of bed every morning. Is there such a thing as objective morality? Maybe not. Why do we need it to have morality? What bothers me is when people act as though they have all the answers when it comes to questions like these. I'd say that with regard to morality and free will and physics and many other topics like this, anyone who thinks they have all the answers obviously hasn't really understood the questions.

Anyway, I doubt anything I say will change your thinking. And that's all right, it probably wouldn't have changed my thinking when I was 19 either.
But because of this, I'd say that we have now pointlessly hijacked a thread about libertarianism.

Lights and Prometheus, you guys should host a political talk show together. That would be good times.

Splittet

12-08-2007, 02:03 PM

Many physicists have done just as much, if not more, studying of the field of philosophy as you have.

I didn't generalize at all. I said some know more than me, while I know more than some. I don't really want to speculate about the numbers. That being said, I feel a lot of philosophical thought is politically correct, and that people only see what they want to see. I feel my ability to see past what I want to see is one of my strongest qualities as a "thinker".

Then your arguments against satanism are flawed because you are generalizing and assuming. Most satanists learn it from a book.
What we read and what we learn from others often amounts to the same thing, just the method of delivery of information is different. You may already agree.

I my book there is a significant difference in reading on your own, and being influenced by others what to read, and by their opinions. The direction of your thought will often become heavily influenced by these individuals, and that’s not something I like. I feel these individuals through these means often will heavily colour your opinions.

Then why did the excerpt you used from Waking Life "sum it up pretty well"?

I said pretty well, but it's not perfect at all. It's not how I would present it. I would not focus as much on physics, but rather on causality in a general sense. I feel the physics of it is just details.

Basically, all I'm saying is that as most people get older, they get a better idea of just how much they don't know (immeasurable amounts) and so are less likely to say things like, "This is how it is and everything else is wrong. I have come to these conclusions, and I know what I'm talking about!" about subjects like the ones we're discussing. That's a bit how you're coming off. Although, maybe I'm misinterpreting you.

My experiences and my own thoughts and study of the matter leads me to believe in free will. But I'm aware of the fact that I may be wrong. You're entitled to your belief about free will and I'm sure that you have some valid reasons for believing as you do, but I'd suggest a bit less certainty about that or about many of the other blanket statements or judgments you've made in your posts.

So that's what I mean when I say young and arrogant. And that's the basis of my issue with everything you've stated. Do we have free will? Maybe not, it doesn't change how I get out of bed every morning. Is there such a thing as objective morality? Maybe not. Why do we need it to have morality? What bothers me is when people act as though they have all the answers when it comes to questions like these. I'd say that with regard to morality and free will and physics and many other topics like this, anyone who thinks they have all the answers obviously hasn't really understood the questions.

Anyway, I doubt anything I say will change your thinking. And that's all right, it probably wouldn't have changed my thinking when I was 19 either.
But because of this, I'd say that we have now pointlessly hijacked a thread about libertarianism.

Lights and Prometheus, you guys should host a political talk show together. That would be good times.

Actually, one of the axioms of my thinking is nothing is certain. As I mentioned earlier, it is the nature of philosophy no certain answers can be found. That being said, I strongly feel my axioms are correct. They are not based on how I want the world to be, but on how I consider the world to likely be. Human belief in religion, morals, in free will and so on can very plausibly be explained by psychological defence mechanisms, by what we want, and also maybe by evolution. But I strongly feel it is all wishful thinking, which I guess is the main reason my intuition is so strongly telling me religion, morals, free will and so on is false.

Jezebel

12-08-2007, 05:17 PM

Posts prior to this post were split from the "Arguments Against Libertarianism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)" thread. Just FYI, in case any of it seems to have a strange context.

Rohsiph

12-10-2007, 10:34 AM

Skimmed through most of this, rushed around the break between pages--

I'm writing a paper on Nietzschean will to power right now (due tomorrow, actually). It seems like it was clarified around the middle of the second page, but in case it wasn't, specifically responding to The Many's comments about not being able to trust what is said in the Will to Power as coming from Nietzsche--consider the Kaufmann translation that commonly references changes from the manuscript and previous printed versions: Nietzsche's sister may have edited the earliest published version, but she did not write the manuscript. Still, Will to Power, as it is, is a loose collection of Nietzsche's last tangents--it's, at best, an outline of what he planned to write.

On "active nihilism": well . . .

let me try to understand the term. We have nihilism, which is a belief in there being no meaning in anything (conscious or not). Placing "active" before this term suggests working towards proving everything to be meaningless . . . which, in itself, looks really disingenuous, even just at first glance. If you are actively trying to validate that everything is meaningless, are you not in effect searching for meaning in there being meaninglessness? Doesn't this fundamentally invalidate your nihilism?

Or, is active nihilism purely destructive tendency--Splittet, you connect the term to Nietzsche's Over Man . . . but the Over Man is the product of the strictest anti-nihilism. The Over Man has made it across the abyss, and is in a position where he/she will exert his/her individual will to power to change the world as he/she desires--acting, from that will to power, in meaningful ways.

Splittet, I get the impression that you are fundamentally confused about what nihilism really is. From the scope of this thread as I perused, you come off more as an extreme cynic with very little hope . . . but that you would even raise any kind of argument is, in itself, anti-nihilist (arguing suggest there is some meaning to be found, even if that meaning is paradoxically that there is no meaning).

Nihilism can only really occur in two forms: the unconscious nihilist (most commonly), and the idiot (one who consciously claims nihilism). The unconscious nihilist acts merely out of reaction to environment, investing his/herself where required completely without regard to his/her will to power (whether there is free will or not). Effectively, the "weak-willed" people that Nietzsche discusses fit this description much of the time--particularly, those who fail to find meaning in religion (which serves an active purpose especially for the weak-willed). One who consciously is aware of believing in nihilism is an idiot because his/her life is completely valueless, by definition: in believing there is absolutely no meaning, to effectively work in such a way means abstaining from absolutely everything that could potentially be meaningful. One could still "go through the motions" (as the unconscious nihilists do), but the ideology is nothing less than self-defeat. If you consider everything to be worthless, then you must also be worthless; therefore, get the fuck out of my way (because I don't consider everything to be worthless--and I particularly consider there to be substantial worth in myself).

Splittet

12-10-2007, 10:49 AM

Splittet, I get the impression that you are fundamentally confused about what nihilism really is. From the scope of this thread as I perused, you come off more as an extreme cynic with very little hope . . . but that you would even raise any kind of argument is, in itself, anti-nihilist (arguing suggest there is some meaning to be found, even if that meaning is paradoxically that there is no meaning).

I seem confused, because you think you got it right, and I am of a different opinion, and then I must be confused. You are confused, but it is to be expected. You are confused about the term "active nihilism", because you haven't heard it before. Active nihilism is in a sense the opposite of passive nihilism, usually simply referred to as nihilism. Let me again quote To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Passive nihilsim is indicative of a decline in spiritual power. It is characterized by the inability to create, or in the extreme to react. The passive nihilist is one who, when faced with the world's uncertainty, withdraws and refuses to enagage the world. For him, uncertainty is a sufficient condition not to proceed through life, and so paralysed by fear of the unknown and unknowable he does nothing. Nietzsche described this condition as ".. the weary nihilism that no longer attacks..a passive nihilism, a sign of weakness".

Active Nihilism on the other hand, is indicative of a relative increase in spiritual power. the active nihilist sees freedom where the passive nihilist sees absurdity or meaninglessness. He chooses action and creation instead of passivity and withdrawal. For him, the lack of objective standards of truth motivates self created standards and criteria. The active nihilist is not active despite the unknown but because of it. He possesses a store of creative energy and power which allows him to impose personal meaning on the world while never forgetting that hes is the source and progenitor of that meaning. He is heroic in this sense, facing the world with courage and purpose.

As you can see, passive and active nihilism is presented as opposites, and they are. I am sure you can see the similarities between the overman and active nihilism, that the overman is an active nihilist. Personally I am in the state of passive nihilism, I mentioned this earlier in the thread. So yeah, I am an extreme cynic with very little hope, you got that right. ;)

I am beaten, my believes are self-destructive, I am weak and so on. I didn't think the discussion was about that, but anyhow I never claimed to be strong or anything like that. I thought the discussion was about the truthfulness of my believes.

Lucid

12-10-2007, 12:26 PM

I seem confused, because you think you got it right, and I am of a different opinion, and then I must be confused. You are confused, but it is to be expected. You are confused about the term "active nihilism", because you haven't heard it before. Active nihilism is in a sense the opposite of passive nihilism, usually simply referred to as nihilism. Let me again quote To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Nihilism isn't a subjective thing where people can disagree about what it is and both be right because it's just their opinion. Truth may be one of these things, morality almost certainly. But when we speak of nihilism we are referring to something which has a set definition. Therefore, when two people disagree about what it is, only one can be correct. Example: If two people are talking about water, and one person thinks that water is H2O, and the other thinks it's H2SO4, they are not both right because it's a matter of subjective opinion. The person who thinks it's H2SO4 is incorrect.

The Many

12-10-2007, 01:51 PM

Nihilism isn't a subjective thing where people can disagree about what it is and both be right because it's just their opinion. Truth may be one of these things, morality almost certainly. But when we speak of nihilism we are referring to something which has a set definition. Therefore, when two people disagree about what it is, only one can be correct. Example: If two people are talking about water, and one person thinks that water is H2O, and the other thinks it's H2SO4, they are not both right because it's a matter of subjective opinion. The person who thinks it's H2SO4 is incorrect.

Well, no. It depends on if you view definitions as essentialistic (that is to say, a thing has a rigid set of properties) or nominalistic (the definition is created by humans through perceptions - which they really are bound to be considering the way we interact with our surroundings; we ). Someone could easily come up with a nominalistic hypothesis saying water is composed of H2SO4 and then use that definition for what constitutes water. It would however be quite misleading to others who disagreed and claimed that water was H20, which is why we are usually best off sticking to the ordinary definitions or creating new words for new things.

As regards active and passive nihilism though, what Splittet calls "active nihilism" has been shown to be used by Nietzsche. This is all very fine (and my bad originally for not having known it), but the fact is that this so-called active nihilism really is nothing more than a form of existentialism - both as in actively creating ones goals and all that stuff which is about as existentialistic as it gets, and also in that Nietzsche considered it a state to be overcome as it would lead to the creation of values.

Splittet

12-10-2007, 01:59 PM

Nihilism isn't a subjective thing where people can disagree about what it is and both be right because it's just their opinion. Truth may be one of these things, morality almost certainly. But when we speak of nihilism we are referring to something which has a set definition. Therefore, when two people disagree about what it is, only one can be correct. Example: If two people are talking about water, and one person thinks that water is H2O, and the other thinks it's H2SO4, they are not both right because it's a matter of subjective opinion. The person who thinks it's H2SO4 is incorrect.

This is pathetic. I am using a perfectly legitimate term here, why can't you accept that? I am not changing the definition of the word nihilism. Active nihilism is a completely different term, so it can have a completely different meaning from the term nihilism. I never use the word nihilism for active nihilism. People confuse it. Nihilism is always associated with passive nihilism. That means I can use the word nihilism for passive nihilism, but when I mean active nihilism, I always say active nihilism, and never just nihilism. But again, it's not the fucking words that are important, but the ideas.

I say I am a nihilist. You might be confused, and think I am of the opinion I am an active nihilist, but I am a passive nihilist, as stated two times in this thread already. That means I either call myself nihilist or passive nihilist. If I was an active nihilist on the other hand, I wouldn't call myself a nihilist, but only an active nihilist.

As regards active and passive nihilism though, what Splittet calls "active nihilism" has been shown to be used by Nietzsche. This is all very fine (and my bad originally for not having known it), but the fact is that this so-called active nihilism really is nothing more than a form of existentialism - both as in actively creating ones goals and all that stuff which is about as existentialistic as it gets, and also in that Nietzsche considered it a state to be overcome as it would lead to the creation of values.

Yes, it is a form of existentialism, but does that make the term bad? I don't see the problem here...

The Many

12-10-2007, 02:40 PM

Yes, it is a form of existentialism, but does that make the term bad? I don't see the problem here...

Well, nihilism does have some negative connotations which certainly leads to you not being taken as seriously when discussing things as you perhaps would have been otherwise. Calling yourself a nihilist since it sounds cool, when you are not what most people assume with the word nihilism creates unnecessary confusion (just look at this thread!) and frankly makes it sound quite immature. I mean, what is the important part of your philosophy? The image or the content?

With all this said though, if you can argue for your sake - which you seem able to do - it's not necessarily a bad thing. Coining new terms (or digging up old ones) often leads to a deeper understanding of an issue, which always is a good thing. The question in this case is if it leads to a deeper understanding and I'm not so sure about that, at least not until you give further explanation to the name than the name itself. But in the end, obviously it's up to you to label yourself and I'm not going to say you can't do it.

The Many added to this post, 17 minutes and 22 seconds later...

I'm writing a paper on Nietzschean will to power right now (due tomorrow, actually). It seems like it was clarified around the middle of the second page, but in case it wasn't, specifically responding to The Many's comments about not being able to trust what is said in the Will to Power as coming from Nietzsche--consider the Kaufmann translation that commonly references changes from the manuscript and previous printed versions: Nietzsche's sister may have edited the earliest published version, but she did not write the manuscript. Still, Will to Power, as it is, is a loose collection of Nietzsche's last tangents--it's, at best, an outline of what he planned to write.

Thanks for the clarification concerning The Will To Power. I thought the translation was of the version his sister had compiled, I was obviously wrong there.

As to nihilism however, you are quite right in that it refutes itself. I mean, if nothing is true, then the statement that nothing is true is in fact false. The same goes when speaking of it as concerns morality; saying there is no such thing as morality is a form of morality in itself since it allows you to do everything.

Splittet

12-10-2007, 04:02 PM

Well, nihilism does have some negative connotations which certainly leads to you not being taken as seriously when discussing things as you perhaps would have been otherwise. Calling yourself a nihilist since it sounds cool, when you are not what most people assume with the word nihilism creates unnecessary confusion (just look at this thread!) and frankly makes it sound quite immature. I mean, what is the important part of your philosophy? The image or the content?

I am not saying I am a nihilist because I think it is cool at all, I am saying it because I am. I am a passive nihilist, who does not believe in any morals and have no purpose. It's purely descriptive. It is what I have found to be true, not because I want it to be, but because it is.

By the way, I heavily dislike being associated with immature teenagers, who calls themselves nihilists for a short period of time. Often just to get attention, be rebellious, and try to act as is what the rest of the world is saying means nothing to them. I don't realte to them.

My studies of philosophy simply led me to the conclusion life is meaningless and that there is no morally right and wrong. It is a philosopical position. Whatever prejudices you might have, are not true.

The Many

12-10-2007, 04:28 PM

I am not saying I am a nihilist because I think it is cool at all, I am saying it because I am. I am a passive nihilist, who does not believe in any morals and have no purpose. It's purely descriptive. It is what I have found to be true, not because I want it to be, but because it is.

By the way, I heavily dislike being associated with immature teenagers, who calls themselves nihilists for a short period of time. Often just to get attention, be rebellious, and try to act as is what the rest of the world is saying means nothing to them. I don't realte to them.

My studies of philosophy simply led me to the conclusion life is meaningless and that there is no morally right and wrong. It is a philosopical position.

Everything but the conclusion in this post sounds very healthy. But if that is your conviction, then see what Rohsiph and I have agreed on. It really refutes itself.

Splittet

12-10-2007, 04:38 PM

Everything but the conclusion in this post sounds very healthy. But if that is your conviction, then see what Rohsiph and I have agreed on. It really refutes itself.

Hehe, I agree it's not very healthy, often the truth is not. I do not agree nihilism refutes itself. I rather look on those arguments as word games, to be honest. The same argument (liar paradox) is used as so-called proof against relativism.

The Many

12-10-2007, 05:27 PM

Hehe, I agree it's not very healthy, often the truth is not. I do not agree nihilism refutes itself. I rather look on those arguments as word games, to be honest. The same argument (liar paradox) is used as so-called proof against relativism.

All logic is composed of word games unless you care for what it actually says.

Rohsiph

12-10-2007, 06:05 PM

This is pathetic. I am using a perfectly legitimate term here, why can't you accept that? I am not changing the definition of the word nihilism. Active nihilism is a completely different term, so it can have a completely different meaning from the term nihilism. I never use the word nihilism for active nihilism. People confuse it. Nihilism is always associated with passive nihilism. That means I can use the word nihilism for passive nihilism, but when I mean active nihilism, I always say active nihilism, and never just nihilism. But again, it's not the fucking words that are important, but the ideas.

I say I am a nihilist. You might be confused, and think I am of the opinion I am an active nihilist, but I am a passive nihilist, as stated two times in this thread already. That means I either call myself nihilist or passive nihilist. If I was an active nihilist on the other hand, I wouldn't call myself a nihilist, but only an active nihilist.

So . . .

I am not saying I am a nihilist because I think it is cool at all, I am saying it because I am. I am a passive nihilist, who does not believe in any morals and have no purpose. It's purely descriptive. It is what I have found to be true, not because I want it to be, but because it is.

By the way, I heavily dislike being associated with immature teenagers, who calls themselves nihilists for a short period of time. Often just to get attention, be rebellious, and try to act as is what the rest of the world is saying means nothing to them. I don't realte to them.

My studies of philosophy simply led me to the conclusion life is meaningless and that there is no morally right and wrong. It is a philosopical position. Whatever prejudices you might have, are not true.

Um . . . I have a problem with you using a term like "active nihilism" to get at something that reads as being effectively opposite actual nihilism because I'm right at the end of 15 weeks of studying Nietzsche in pursuit of the Philosophy half of my undergraduate degree (I'm actually off to finish drafting a paper on the concept of will to power in Nietzsche after finishing this post).

Now, I was under the impression until I reread what I've quoted that you were arguing that your view is that of the "active nihilist"--but now . . . that's not right?

Meaning that I was right to point out the possible measures of nihilism in my first response to this topic, yes? (Even if my contention about active-nihilism was way off). Since you have consciously concluded yourself to be a nihilist, you cannot be an unconscious nihilist . . . therefore, you're a . . . self-contradicting idiot . . . oh.

Well, that's too bad, eh?

Please don't waste any resources that I could make better use of while mucking about in your pointlessness. I mean, feel free to claim them once you find a way out (if that way out isn't suicide), but for the time being I'm gonna push you out of my way any time you happen to stumble across my path, so just to make it easier for all of us, eh . . .

(Just in case it wasn't really clear: that you're pursuing this argument is actively working against your self-claim of nihilism--to effectively be a true nihilist, you're not allowed to argue anything, unless it happens to be part of a job you accidentally stumbled into, which I highly doubt is the case here--though I apologize if I'm wrong with this assumption).

. . .

continuing to review the more recent responses to this thread:

Please refer to your own definitions of nihilism above: regardless of viewing things essentially or nominally, the view you have concluded supports the definition I advocated as being nihilism in my first response. FOLLOWING your own definitions: life is meaningless. Therefore, you should stop participating in this argument, because it is of absolutely zero concern (since you cannot rightfully have concern) for you to proceed (and, oddly enough, must have been of no concern for you to have even started--to validate the "self-contradicting idiot" thing).

If you're arguing, you're not a nihilist. You might be pretty close--but, regardless, you look like a fool to anyone who takes the time to follow, even slightly, your arguments.

Please explain to me how there is 100% meaninglessness in "strongly disliking" something, as well as how there is 100% purposelessness in carrying out an argument, if you still think you have anything to say here.

Lucid

12-10-2007, 08:14 PM

Splittet

12-11-2007, 04:27 AM

Lucid

12-11-2007, 02:14 PM

Well, no. It depends on if you view definitions as essentialistic (that is to say, a thing has a rigid set of properties) or nominalistic (the definition is created by humans through perceptions - which they really are bound to be considering the way we interact with our surroundings; we ). Someone could easily come up with a nominalistic hypothesis saying water is composed of H2SO4 and then use that definition for what constitutes water. It would however be quite misleading to others who disagreed and claimed that water was H20, which is why we are usually best off sticking to the ordinary definitions or creating new words for new things.

H2SO4 is sulfuric acid. We can call H2SO4 water or we can call it sulfuric acid. The term itself is arbitrary. However, if a person asks for a glass of water he means H2O and if you bring him a glass of H2SO4 it may cause problems. While the definition is arbitrary, there are certain things that we must agree on when it comes to meaning. This is the nature of language and what makes it functional.

Someone could easily come up with a nominalistic hypothesis saying water is composed of H2SO4 and then use that definition for what constitutes water.

I'm afraid I must disagree.

Rohsiph

12-11-2007, 04:02 PM

I certainly do not feel I am getting across my opinions, it's like talking to a wall. You guys have to understand a couple of things about nihilism, you got to have a couple of aha moments. I am not a communicator, so I will probably not be able to get my ideas across. You guys are able to understand some, but are not open enough to fully understand.

I understand the standard definitions of nihilism perfectly well--and yes, this thread is like talking to a wall, from both sides.

A couple of points though. You cannot criticise the actions of a nihilist from the nihilist perspective. No actions are simply right or wrong. There is no doing contrary to nihilism, in a sense. From the nihilist point of view, there is no reason why self-contradiction should be avoided.

I can criticize anything I want to criticize--and you can counter my criticisms if you really want to. Well, actually, in your case you can't . . . not from my perspective, at least, which fundamentally seeks to find & establish sense if nothing else.

I do not claim having this discussion is meaningful from a rationale point of view, that disliking someone is. It's perfectly meaningless and irrational, which is the nature of humans. I am a human, grown up in a culture of absolutism, it is hard to change my whole emotional nature.

This gives me a very good insight into where you're actually coming from . . . the problem is that your perspective is philosophically naive at best. Breaking out of the framework of absolutist structures . . . I actually like to think I do this, but only when I'm making art. When I'm functioning normally, and particularly when I'm considering my studies in philosophy, absolutist foundations are entirely sensible.

When it comes to passive and active nihilism, etc

Don't care about this--it's not what we're really trying to discuss, anyways.

And again, these are not my definitions. They are perfectly legitimate ones, even used by Nietzsche, although not much. The meaning of the words is not that hard to learn either, they actually make perfect sense.

Perfect is too strong a word for what you're trying to argue. Much, much too strong.

I think I'm starting to understand your perspective now, but in so doing I'm finding that you look like a helpless case. You're arguing based on your individual valuations, and not on the ground established in most philosophical discussion (that of empirical rational discourse). I do not have access to your experiences or your valuations, so there is no way for me to effectively parse your situation in a way where I can fully respect your opinions.

My biggest problem with you now isn't so much that you keep claiming to be a nihilist while appearing to partake in actions that suggest things are meaningful to you, but that your argument now seems premised on an oddly absolute relativism.

And oh, oh, oh, the problems of relativism . . . primary among them: if you're effectively working from a concept of relativism that you honestly believe avoids the multitude of problems posed by the vast majority of modern philosophers, then you're effectively not thinking hard enough--you're not trying.

And maybe you can't bring yourself to my level--but you're the one with the problem here. I can see a number of possible avenues to/from relativism; unfortunately, none of them are actually intelligent.

Splittet

12-11-2007, 04:36 PM

I understand the standard definitions of nihilism perfectly well--and yes, this thread is like talking to a wall, from both sides.

But we are not discussing what nihilism is, but what active and passive nihilism is.

I can criticize anything I want to criticize--and you can counter my criticisms if you really want to. Well, actually, in your case you can't . . . not from my perspective, at least, which fundamentally seeks to find & establish sense if nothing else.

I think you know what I really meant.

Perfect is too strong a word for what you're trying to argue. Much, much too strong.

Perfect sense referred to the definitions of active and passive nihilism, not my views.

I think I'm starting to understand your perspective now, but in so doing I'm finding that you look like a helpless case. You're arguing based on your individual valuations, and not on the ground established in most philosophical discussion (that of empirical rational discourse). I do not have access to your experiences or your valuations, so there is no way for me to effectively parse your situation in a way where I can fully respect your opinions.

The thing is, we are discussing philosophy here. We cannot know what the correct answers are. When we reach some kind of philosophical conclusion, we always must use our intuition in choosing axioms that are impossible to prove. That part of the process must always be very personal.

My biggest problem with you now isn't so much that you keep claiming to be a nihilist while appearing to partake in actions that suggest things are meaningful to you, but that your argument now seems premised on an oddly absolute relativism.

I have done some good thinking on meaning today, which I won't really present here though. Anyhow, my belief was always that there is no objective meaning, but definitely subjective. People experience meaning all the time, I never argued against that. There are a lot of paradoxes in my thinking, which makes it hard to grasp. It really needs time to sink in. When you present the idea of nihilism to many people, you might say according to nihilism, there is nothing wrong in killing, and then they might ask me, if I should kill them. As if I in any sense was morally obligated to do so, and then you haven't really understood much about what nihilism is.

And oh, oh, oh, the problems of relativism . . . primary among them: if you're effectively working from a concept of relativism that you honestly believe avoids the multitude of problems posed by the vast majority of modern philosophers, then you're effectively not thinking hard enough--you're not trying.

And maybe you can't bring yourself to my level--but you're the one with the problem here. I can see a number of possible avenues to/from relativism; unfortunately, none of them are actually intelligent.

I didn't really say anything about my believes on relativism. I only meant to say I think it is bullshit to use the liar paradox as an argument against it. I will say this, I find the whole question difficult. What is truth? I still don't think I have found a very good answer to it. Another difficult question is the problem of universals, it makes me dizzy. For a while I thought some about it, but it always gave me a headache. I never felt I could get into it.

The Many

12-11-2007, 04:46 PM

H2SO4 is sulfuric acid. We can call H2SO4 water or we can call it sulfuric acid. The term itself is arbitrary. However, if a person asks for a glass of water he means H2O and if you bring him a glass of H2SO4 it may cause problems. While the definition is arbitrary, there are certain things that we must agree on when it comes to meaning. This is the nature of language and what makes it functional.

I'm afraid I must disagree.

I know what H2SO4 is, and also that it is called sulphuric acid. I also get your point, but language is not static. Language is based on definitions and the problem is that these definitions are not rigid. Look at, for instance, how many different things people may mean when referring to "God" - the fact of the matter is that people all use the word "God" according to their definitions; their own stereotype of what "God" is, which easily leads to confusion. I agree in so far as that we really should try to "speak the same language", I am however afraid that we actually don't.

Rohsiph

12-11-2007, 05:03 PM

Interesting, things are getting clearer again. I appreciate this.

But we are not discussing what nihilism is, but what active and passive nihilism is.

. . . well, I appreciate parts of this. Earlier, you stated that passive nihilism is essentially the same as the "standard" nihilism that I continue to refer to. You are a passive nihilist. I've been trying to talk about you.

I suppose you may be confused if you think the discussion has not evolved since your original thread-starting post?

Perfect sense referred to the definitions of active and passive nihilism, not my views.

But I am trying to discuss your views.

The thing is, we are discussing philosophy here. We cannot know what the correct answers are. When we reach some kind of philosophical conclusion, we always must use our intuition in choosing axioms that are impossible to prove. That part of the process must always be very personal.

My annoyance is that you continue to be really sloppy with your langauge. If we're really discussing philosophy here, then it is primarily important for us to agree on terms and to be as precise as possible with our language.

Here, you are claiming that truth, if there is any absolute truth, is necessarily transcendental. Yet, you proceed to demand that "we always must" something--if the truth of the matter is necessarily transcendental, and you are functioning primarily from non-absolutist foundations, then how can you effectively assert any absolute statements?

Further annoyance: I keep using logic, and you keep glossing over it. Logic is the "math" behind the language of philosophy . . . you need to use some kind of logic to approach philosophy. Now, you might claim use of an individualistic value-based logic . . . but I have yet to make any sense of consistent themes that would suggest a firm basis you could ever hope of explaining to me.

I have done some good thinking on meaning today, which I won't really present here though. Anyhow, my belief was always that there is no objective meaning, but definitely subjective. People experience meaning all the time, I never argued against that. There are a lot of paradoxes in my thinking, which makes it hard to grasp. It really needs time to sink in. When you present the idea of nihilism to many people, you might say according to nihilism, there is nothing wrong in killing, and then they might ask me, if I should kill them. As if I in any sense was morally obligated to do so, and then you haven't really understood much about what nihilism is.

The problem with STANDARD nihilism--which, I understood a number of posts ago, agrees with your definition of PASSIVE nihilism--is that it NECESSARILY claims there is -NO- meaning, subjective or otherwise. It's not nihilism if there is meaning. You NEED to explain, in detail, how you are using your definitions if you are going to continue making assertions as you have been doing.

Paradoxes in thinking, in philosophy at least, are signs that your thinking is, um, . . . bad. There's no other way to really say that. Now, we can start talking about aesthetics, or moralistic metaphysics, and then perhaps we can start considering the fruits of paradoxical thinking. However, in philosophy paradoxes are really bad.

When I present the idea of nihilism to someone, I say this: nihilism is the belief that there is no meaning in anything. I say that because that's the standard definition of nihilism, ever since Nietzsche coined the term in the late 19th century. I wouldn't present it, at least at first, in any other way because that'd be, well, stupid.

I didn't really say anything about my believes on relativism. I only meant to say I think it is bullshit to use the liar paradox as an argument against it. I will say this, I find the whole question difficult. What is truth? I still don't think I have found a very good answer to it. Another difficult question is the problem of universals, it makes me dizzy. For a while I thought some about it, but it always gave me a headache. I never felt I could get into it.

Right . . . I don't get headaches when I think about relativism, truth, or universals. I'm in my fourth year of undergraduate studies focusing on English and Philosophy (a double major--yay!). I'm not even going to claim to understand slightly what kind of background you're coming at this from. I would be worried, though, if you've had more opportunities than me to figure these things out . . . although maybe you've just had terrible instructors throughout your life.

In any case, I always appreciate when someone is willing to continue an argument beyond my usually bombastic preliminary contentions, so I want to pause for a moment to say I appreciate you continuing to respond here.

Lucid

12-11-2007, 07:52 PM

I know what H2SO4 is, and also that it is called sulphuric acid. I also get your point, but language is not static. Language is based on definitions and the problem is that these definitions are not rigid. Look at, for instance, how many different things people may mean when referring to "God" - the fact of the matter is that people all use the word "God" according to their definitions; their own stereotype of what "God" is, which easily leads to confusion. I agree in so far as that we really should try to "speak the same language", I am however afraid that we actually don't.

People do mean a variety of different things when they say "God," but all those things are somewhat similar. They have different ideas about what god may be, but the term itself has something in common in each case.
I agree that definitions aren't rigid and often it's a benefit that they aren't. It can give language a lot of flexibility. But H2SO4 and H2O are not the same thing and it would be considered "incorrect" to refer to them both using the word "water." An incorrect term is one which does not refer to what the speaker is intending it to refer to.

It's a small point, either way, but I'm taking philosophy of language right now and this kind of thing is talked about a lot, so I thought it was an interesting tangent.

I didn't mean to imply that you didn't know what H2SO4 was... but you mentioned that someone might argue that it was the same as H2O... and so I wasn't sure.

I would say that your example using the word God, is problematic because "God" doesn't have as set a definition as nihilism does or H2SO4.

stasis

12-12-2007, 01:40 PM

Nihilism as coherent philosophy is a sham. It is an intellectual oubliette, into which one throws oneself after rejecting the incoherent moral norms of the background culture. And once inside, it makes necessarily no sense to mount an effort to establish baseless definitions over the course of meaningless debate about a topic which you have come to conclude reduces to the emptiness of worthlessness. So, a lot of the discussion in this thread strikes me as being kind of strange.

But, whatever.

I will volunteer that I find one thing you bring up interesting, Splittet. Although I am not an Objectivist, Rand's metaphysics and epistemology seem well suited to life without some sort of 'cosmic meaning' validating social function from the outside. It almost sounds like you've discarded that construct on grounds that wouldn't apply to it. Can you elaborate a bit more about that in particular?

danalaina

12-12-2007, 03:56 PM

nihilism bores me. i think it's time for a new idea.

this is something i've addressed before in my musings elsewhere. what i always come up with is, "there's no meaning. so what/what now?"

stasis

12-12-2007, 10:06 PM

this is something i've addressed before in my musings elsewhere. what i always come up with is, "there's no meaning. so what/what now?"
Meaning is created and applied by intelligent consciousness, wouldn't you agree? To say there is "no meaning," then, would consequently be to say that no intelligent consciousness exists. That people who generate and attach meaning cannot do such a thing, for whatever unintelligible (by definition) reason. Sounds like nonsense to me.

The Many

12-13-2007, 01:56 PM

People do mean a variety of different things when they say "God," but all those things are somewhat similar. They have different ideas about what god may be, but the term itself has something in common in each case.
I agree that definitions aren't rigid and often it's a benefit that they aren't. It can give language a lot of flexibility. But H2SO4 and H2O are not the same thing and it would be considered "incorrect" to refer to them both using the word "water." An incorrect term is one which does not refer to what the speaker is intending it to refer to.

It's a small point, either way, but I'm taking philosophy of language right now and this kind of thing is talked about a lot, so I thought it was an interesting tangent.

I didn't mean to imply that you didn't know what H2SO4 was... but you mentioned that someone might argue that it was the same as H2O... and so I wasn't sure.

I would say that your example using the word God, is problematic because "God" doesn't have as set a definition as nihilism does or H2SO4.

Well, yes. Of course it would be considered "incorrect" to refer to H2SO4 as water, but that doesn't mean it can't be referred to as water due to the fact that the term may be changed to be given another meaning - which is a stupid thing to do since it won't get your point across, but that is beside the point here. The thing is that calling H2SO4 water would mean that you would refer your own definition of water, since there is no set, metaphysical definition of water.

But still, I agree on that it most certainly is good to use the ordinary definitions of words, at least unless you make yourself clear about meaning something new. As Popper states, these problems could potentially be solved by writing out ones definition of the word, but that simply isn't feasible in ordinary debate.

I also used the word "God" to show that words easily may have various definitions, even though nihilism or water usually don't have fleeting definitions in this way. In the end, however, I think we really agree with each other in that one should use the most appropriate terms to be able to succesfully get ones point through.

Lucid

12-13-2007, 02:04 PM

Well, yes. Of course it would be considered "incorrect" to refer to H2SO4 as water, but that doesn't mean it can't be referred to as water due to the fact that the term may be changed to be given another meaning - which is a stupid thing to do since it won't get your point across, but that is beside the point here. The thing is that calling H2SO4 water would mean that you would refer your own definition of water, since there is no set, metaphysical definition of water.

But still, I agree on that it most certainly is good to use the ordinary definitions of words, at least unless you make yourself clear about meaning something new. As Popper states, these problems could potentially be solved by writing out ones definition of the word, but that simply isn't feasible in ordinary debate.

I also used the word "God" to show that words easily may have various definitions, even though nihilism or water usually don't have fleeting definitions in this way. In the end, however, I think we really agree with each other in that one should use the most appropriate terms to be able to succesfully get ones point through.

I think we agree also. I definitely agree that it's possible to change the meaning of a term (one such example is "gay"). And that terms themselves are fluid and changeable. Although, when having a conversation about a philosophical point I'd say it's important to use the correct (or a correct) term to describe a belief. Just like when chemists speak about H2O and H2SO4 it's important (arguably more so than in philosophy;)) that they use the correct terms.
People decide on the definitions of words, not the other way around.

The Many

12-13-2007, 02:07 PM

I think we agree also. I definitely agree that it's possible to change the meaning of a term (one such example is "gay"). And that terms themselves are fluid and changeable. Although, when having a conversation about a philosophical point I'd say it's important to use the correct (or a correct) term to describe a belief. Just like when chemists speak about H2O and H2SO4 it's important (arguably more so than in philosophy;)) that they use the correct terms.
People decide on the definitions of words, not the other way around.

Exactly. The fact that essentialism in general has had such success throughout the years is really quite strange. I blame the INTPs! :p

Quite Robert

12-20-2007, 02:52 PM

I think we agree also. I definitely agree that it's possible to change the meaning of a term (one such example is "gay"). And that terms themselves are fluid and changeable. Although, when having a conversation about a philosophical point I'd say it's important to use the correct (or a correct) term to describe a belief. Just like when chemists speak about H2O and H2SO4 it's important (arguably more so than in philosophy;)) that they use the correct terms.
People decide on the definitions of words, not the other way around.

So by ruling that the definitions of words such as free will and nihlism are subjective are you impling that such a thing can not be proven or disproven? lol does that make this conversation a mute point?

By the way Lucid I have seen you mention the strange nature of young INTJs several times. Could you expand on this?

Lucid

12-20-2007, 08:43 PM

So by ruling that the definitions of words such as free will and nihlism are subjective are you impling that such a thing can not be proven or disproven? lol does that make this conversation a mute point?

Actually, I wasn't arguing that words such as "free will" and "nihilism" had subjective definitions.

What I said was that there are cases where the definitions of words can change and that language is a pretty fluid thing, but that it's also important that things have definitions that we agree on.
My exact words were:
"when having a conversation about a philosophical point I'd say it's important to use the correct (or a correct) term to describe a belief."

The point came up after Splittet said that his disagreement with Rohsiph about the definition of Nihilism was due to a difference in opinion about the meaning of the word.

I made a point earlier that while some things can be seen as a difference of opinion, I didn't feel that Nihilism was one of them.
"Nihilism isn't a subjective thing where people can disagree about what it is and both be right because it's just their opinion."

I'm not sure why you thought I was arguing that words like "nihilism" and "free will" have subjective meanings when I stated explicitly in one post that I thought just the opposite.

I hope that helps to explain my previous posts a bit more.

By the way Lucid I have seen you mention the strange nature of young INTJs several times. Could you expand on this?

If you could show me where else I've made such statements I'd be happy to explain them. As it stands now, I can't remember any other places I've mentioned it. And I can't even seem to find where I mentioned it in relation to this post. It's certainly possible that I did... but I'm not finding it.

What I can say is that I've said that when I was young I held some strange beliefs. I'm not sure that I've explicitly said that young INTJs seem to hold strange beliefs myself, but I do think I've agreed with others who have made that statement. Mostly because, as I stated, I held some wacky views myself.

That's really the best I can do to answer your question without seeing the actual posts that you're referring to.

Splittet

12-21-2007, 10:11 PM

The point came up after Splittet said that his disagreement with Rohsiph about the definition of Nihilism was due to a difference in opinion about the meaning of the word.

Oh, that was not my point. But my points are usually hard to get. Sorry about that. My attitude towards words is that they have many meanings (some more common and important to know than others), and I like to know them all. That being said, when I talk to others, I try to use the most common definition(s) of the words, because it makes my message more understandable, although I guess I am not doing enough. Anyhow, I never meant to say your definitions of nihilism were wrong. You guys were referring to the most common one. When I talk about active and passive nihilism, I am not referring to the ambiguous word nihilism, I am referring to two terms on their own, and they are not very ambiguous at all. They could be seen completely separate from the term nihilism, and could very well exist without it. As for the term nihilism, I most often use it about philosophical nihilism, but I do realize a lot of prejudiced people associate it only with destructiveness and the Russian nihilistic movement. Both uses of the word are pretty common though, and honestly, if people are too prejudiced to see the other common definition, I say go to hell! It's a perfectly legitimate and dictionary approved use of the word.

From dictionary.com on the word:
ni•hil•ism [nahy-uh-liz-uhm, nee-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. total rejection of established laws and institutions.
2. anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity.
3. total and absolute destructiveness, esp. toward the world at large and including oneself: the power-mad nihilism that marked Hitler's last years.
4. Philosophy. a. an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.
b. nothingness or nonexistence.

5. (sometimes initial capital letter) the principles of a Russian revolutionary group, active in the latter half of the 19th century, holding that existing social and political institutions must be destroyed in order to clear the way for a new state of society and employing extreme measures, including terrorism and assassination.
6. annihilation of the self, or the individual consciousness, esp. as an aspect of mystical experience.

Lucid

12-22-2007, 12:28 AM

Oh, that was not my point. But my points are usually hard to get. Sorry about that. My attitude towards words is that they have many meanings (some more common and important to know than others), and I like to know them all. That being said, when I talk to others, I try to use the most common definition(s) of the words, because it makes my message more understandable, although I guess I am not doing enough. Anyhow, I never meant to say your definitions of nihilism were wrong. You guys were referring to the most common one. When I talk about active and passive nihilism, I am not referring to the ambiguous word nihilism, I am referring to two terms on their own, and they are not very ambiguous at all. They could be seen completely separate from the term nihilism, and could very well exist without it. As for the term nihilism, I most often use it about philosophical nihilism, but I do realize a lot of prejudiced people associate it only with destructiveness and the Russian nihilistic movement. Both uses of the word are pretty common though, and honestly, if people are too prejudiced to see the other common definition, I say go to hell! It's a perfectly legitimate and dictionary approved use of the word.

No need to apologize for misunderstandings, although I'm glad you cleared that up. :)

danalaina

12-22-2007, 04:03 AM

Meaning is created and applied by intelligent consciousness, wouldn't you agree?
yes, in a very literal sense, but not in the "the universe is larger than me and therefore there's probably something useful out there" sense. it's a matter of inherent value, which (if actual) would exist whether or not we say it does.

To say there is "no meaning," then, would consequently be to say that no intelligent consciousness exists.
no, to say that there is no meaning is to acknowledge that there may well be no inherent value. let me clarify, though, that i am not now nor have i ever been a nihilist. i find it short-sighted and, worse, dull. the point to my original post is really, "okay, if the nihilists are right, and there is no inherent value to things...so what? why dwell?"

That people who generate and attach meaning cannot do such a thing, for whatever unintelligible (by definition) reason. Sounds like nonsense to me.
semantics play. rock on. not really in line with what i was talking about, though.

INTroJect

12-22-2007, 06:40 AM

Hello everyone on this thread. I imagine it will be from a distance because I am not sure of what I can add to this except for a good show of ignorance on the subject. I wont be offended if I am ignored for breaking from the grain of the discussion. Splitt, its funny that on your last post you put the dictionary.com def of nilhilism, as I was reading along I had to look this up so that I could have some kind of understanding of what was being discussed. Im 26 and have only begun to study Philosophy in recent years and have found it to cause a great improvement in my outlook and ability to see things in the world around me through multiple 'window panes'.

From what I can read about active nilhilism (I know you repeated yourself multiple times on your beliefs but please feel comfortable to correct me if I am wrong) is that you are seeing the world around you as meaningless with the "active" part describing you as decided to do something about it despite the circumstances? I can't exactly put myself in that place, however, it does not seem like a bad outlook to adopt. Now, the area where I think I might be able to add to this discussion, although I am not sure if it is an addition or not, but reading through this material I kept falling back on my readings of MK Gandhi 'In Search of Truth' he seemed to be standing at an opposite end of this (that I can identify) by saying "The truth does exist and personal growth comes from searching for it"

Plus there was some discussion earlier about the nonexistence of willpower? His life seems like a contridiction to that but the nonexistence of willpower mean that, due to external environmental factors, he ultimately didn't have any willpower to not do the things that he did?

If I am not making an intelligent addition please someoen tell me so. Although I hope that that someone would find the willpower to not be snotty about it. Either way I will be reading along.

Splittet

12-22-2007, 07:53 AM

From what I can read about active nilhilism (I know you repeated yourself multiple times on your beliefs but please feel comfortable to correct me if I am wrong) is that you are seeing the world around you as meaningless with the "active" part describing you as decided to do something about it despite the circumstances?

Well, this is the thing: Both the passive and active nihilist realizes the world is without any inherit meaning. But they react very differently to this. The passive nihilist sees meaninglessness and no reason to live, going into depression. The active nihilist sees this as a gift (he is not active despite meaninglessness, but because of it), when meaning is not defined, he can define it himself and embraces the freedom given by nihilism. It is really just two states of being, and I am more of a passive nihilist than an active nihilist. But the goal is to become an active nihilist.

INTroJect

12-22-2007, 04:27 PM

Well, this is the thing: Both the passive and active nihilist realizes the world is without any inherit meaning. But they react very differently to this. The passive nihilist sees meaninglessness and no reason to live, going into depression. The active nihilist sees this as a gift (he is not active despite meaninglessness, but because of it), when meaning is not defined, he can define it himself and embraces the freedom given by nihilism. It is really just two states of being, and I am more of a passive nihilist than an active nihilist. But the goal is to become an active nihilist.

What is so hard about being an active nilhilist? The world is your oyster, you have complete control of the world around you through control of your own thoughts and actions. I have not read Ann Rand's books but what I understand about her point is that guarding your own self interest is the number one above everything else on the planet. You ARE 'numero uno' and you have every right to do everything that you please that is in your own best interest.

Now, some might argue against that because of limitation on the law (you know, it's not nice to rape people) and lately Mexicans (I've been spending time in the immigration threads) but the caveat to it is that, ultimately, it is also not in your own best interest to do negative actions. Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com, put it in a way that has stuck with me for a bit, and even forced me to step out of myself (i.e. step out of what I am learning was passive nilnilism, although I didn't have a word for it), he called it thinking within the context of a "Regret Minimalization Framework". The idea with this is to imagine that you are 80 years old and looking back at your life now. You have 61 years lefy and boy that clock is ticking FAST. Your job is to make your decisions so that when you reach that point you can look back with the least amount of regret as possible. Neitsche, I have not read his work but I plan to, seems to be saying that you are not living unless you can say that if you had to hit a reset button you would gladly do it all over again.

What is it that you want out of life? An honest non-cheating girlfriend? Decide to yourself that you want that, the factors that could get in the way, and systematically remove any of the factors that would get in the way of what you want. Other people will always do what they think is in their own best interest 100% of the time, the stick to this is that sometimes it is not in their own best interest, but in their mind it is. Set up the factors around the other person's life so that they see that it IS in their best interest to be honest and not cheat. And well, if she does anyway, your desire is to have an honest and non-cheating gf and this one is contrary to that, you were simply wrong in your assessment, toss that fish back into the water.

Seeing the world as meaningless is a very strong asset because you can freely meld what looks like a solid and true to most people to form the world around you to do what you want it to do. If it is all meaningless (and I agree with you there that it probably all is) you might as well pick the fruits from the trees and have a good time while doing it. You are not going to get a chance to do it again.

This whole no-willpower thing I am not quite sure about yet. Napoleon had said that great people have no willpower but Shakespeare said somethign to the effect of "Our bodies are our garden and our will is the gardener"...then why did Napoleon supposedly have a 'lovely figure' but no willpower? And Gandhi was Mr. Willpower with his diet, his goal was to only eat the minimum to keep himself alive. There is something with this willpower thing that is screwy for me, because I know whever I try to force myslef into anything that I think is the right thing to do and using my 'willpower' to deal with it, eventually it feels like a rubber band stretches and then snaps, the whole world goes upside down because things aren't happening the way that I want them to but after the storm is over I go back to doing what I do best without using my willpower and I am all the better off for it. That might be why someone would say "there is no willpower".

Splittet

12-22-2007, 04:45 PM

What is so hard about being an active nilhilist?

Well, most people have a difficult time seeing what is good in meaninglessness. I guess it's largely cultural. If we grew up with this world view, I think it would be much easier to deal. Anyhow, I think the INTJ type is one of the types best suited for active nihilism. I think if you want to live enough, you will be able to fill your world with meaning.

Neitsche, I have not read his work but I plan to, seems to be saying that you are not living unless you can say that if you had to hit a reset button you would gladly do it all over again.

This is his idea of eternal recurrence. It is explained on Wikipedia:

Nietzsche calls the idea "horrifying and paralyzing," and says that its burden is the "heaviest weight" ("das schwerste Gewicht") imaginable. The wish for the eternal return of all events would mark the ultimate affirmation of life:

What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more' ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.' [The Gay Science, §341]

This reminds me why I love Nietzsche, such wild imagination, so ruthless!

INTroJect

12-22-2007, 05:33 PM

Im pretty sure that if someoen walked into this room right now and said that I would have to do it all over again I would be ok with it. Maybe skip the part where I was under the rule of well-meaning parents but I could pretty much handle everything after that. I'm confused, why wouldn't someone want to do their life all over again? Most people would not be happy about this? You would not want to do it all over?

Splittet

12-22-2007, 05:41 PM

INTroJect

12-22-2007, 05:50 PM

But the idea is not to do it all over again just once, but eternally ... I certainly wouldn't do that.

As in being eternally trapped in this same life? If that were the case I should be going out and having a lot more random sex than what I am currently having. I can't think of much of anything else. Thinking about it in that context just leads to a whole lot of hedonistic thoughts. Fun.

Splittet

12-22-2007, 05:57 PM

As in being eternally trapped in this same life? If that were the case I should be going out and having a lot more random sex than what I am currently having. I can't think of much of anything else. Thinking about it in that context just leads to a whole lot of hedonistic thoughts. Fun.

Nope, not in that sense, but in the sense of living the same life over and over again, and having the burden of knowing that all you experience now, you will experience again. The life you live now, is the life you forever will be trapped in. Every action you make kind of gets a whole new meaning to it, when you now you will have to experience it over and over again eternally.

INTroJect

12-22-2007, 05:58 PM

Why wouldn't you want to do it all over again eternally? Hmm. Im thinking about all these things that I would be doing and all of them hedonistic. Thats lovely, my nature is naturally restrained, I now see where people who think like that are coming from. They don't want to miss a moment.

Splittet

12-22-2007, 06:00 PM

INTroJect

12-22-2007, 06:09 PM

Nope, not in that sense, but in the sense of living the same life over and over again, and having the burden of knowing that all you experience now, you will experience again. The life you live now, is the life you forever will be trapped in. Every action you make kind of gets a whole new meaning to it, when you now you will have to experience it over and over again eternally.

Doesn't bother me at all. I think I am ok with that because I've been thinking/acting in terms of the regret minimalization framework.

TheLoneINTJ added to this post, 7 minutes and 5 seconds later...

If I think in the eternal repetition I would be walking down the street saying "Ya wanna have sex?" "Ya wanna have sex?" and I think the result that would eventually come from that would be a regret: GonnaSyphaHerpalAIDS. What else would someoen want from life if they were going to repeat it for eternity than to just be having sex all the time? Maybe eating, and doing a lot of drugs. Rape, Pillage and Plunder. If you have to do it all over and over again you might as well make it very pleasant and short. Certainly not follow any of the rules or the established system. Hitler was a fan of Nzche, probably explains his rise and fall.

Splittet

12-22-2007, 06:46 PM

Hitler was a fan of Nzche, probably explains his rise and fall.

Well, he was a "fan" because his sister had forged "his philosophy", because she wanted it to be the philosophical grounds of Nazism. The whole thing was very mislead. Nietzsche himself hated anti-Semitism, and when his sister married a leading anti-Semitist it ruined their relationship. In a letter to his sister Nietzsche wrote:

After I read the name Zarathustra in the anti-Semitic Correspondence my forbearance came to an end. I am now in a position of emergency defense against your spouse's Party. These accursed anti-Semite deformities shall not sully my ideal!!

Rohsiph

12-22-2007, 11:11 PM

INTroJect

12-23-2007, 12:34 AM

It's . . . narrow, to say the least, to decide that a maximization of one willing his/her eternal recurrence would mean a completely hedonistic lifestyle. The consequences most recently mentioned are but the tip of that iceberg . . .

The interesting thing about eternal recurrence is that it includes everything--pain, pleasure, and all in-betweens. The quick answer would be to want a life devoid of pain and filled with pleasure . . . but what can really be said about such a life? "That person was always happy."

Well, I suppose that's nice . . . but I want something more than that.

Classify it as you wish. I wasn't applying it to all of humanity but I was explaining how it felt when putting on this 'eternal recurrence cap'. And ultimately, if it was my life and I had to live it over and over again on an eternal basis, I wouldn't care what anyone had to say about it because people would be saying "Not only did he manage to save the world from its own desrtuction, but he also really knew how to rock" after I had died but I would be back on reset living it all over again.

I think the point that Nzche had for the eternal recurrence is that it forces someone to think about what they may be missing from their life. It also gives you a kick in the rear to get movin' on getting those things as urgently as possible and don't let life get in your way. So I may be missing in a certain area, if you are going to be on this eternal recurrence as well I invite you to come and be my concubine and we can take it from there. Maybe my natural restraint in life has me missing this little bit-o hedonism while I am confident that I have the rest of the internal checklist of desires covered?

I am comfortable with the decisions that I have made that were within my control, anger/saddness/fear/envy/unhappiness are rare, happiness and contentment are the norm. Maybe I have further challenges ahead of me that I am unaware of that may change my mind but my take on my life, as of today, is as stated. Where are you on your eternal recurrence? Are you happy?

NephilimAzrael

08-03-2008, 01:55 PM

Free-will or determinism?

Julien

08-04-2008, 01:14 PM

Few people have any will at all, let alone "free will". :thinking:

Antisocialite

08-04-2008, 01:28 PM

Whew. I have nothing to add to this conversation other than THIS IS EXACTLY WHY I'M AN EXISTENTIALIST. Individual existence is what each person makes it.

zibber

08-05-2008, 02:48 AM

Wow, good thread, apart from people arguing over what Nietzsche did or did not say. Too bad Splittet doesn't really post anymore.

I have no reason to disbelieve some manner of determinism (the specifics of which aren't really relevant to the implied absence of something like "true free will"), but to deny that free will practically exists, at least to some degree, seems unnecessary. Even if your thoughts are "decided by" (the result of) particles interacting, as most aspects of our reality seem to be, don't they feel so strongly like your thoughts that they are, in a sense?

What does the determinism/free will relationship come down to, anyway? Would quantum uncertainty change the possibility of free will? Don't macroscopic factors like hormones and energy levels influence thought much more?

NobodysLamb

08-09-2008, 02:00 AM

I think that to claim that libertarianism is "bullshit" because of its belief in and support of rights is it self bullshit. No matter where you look at it from, or how many "ists" and "isms" you can apply to it, the fact is we're all the same when we're born, and we're all the same when we die. No difference. Einstein was born the same way as that hobo down the street and in the end their both dead, end of story.

I would agree that the idea of rights was a waste of time, however, in my mind, that fact that we are all essentially equal in the most basic, fundamental ways, mandates the equal treatment of every individual, which is something that could not possibly happen if society had not constructed some form of rights to which every person is entitled.

Therefore, to ask whether or not we are born with rights or if they truly exist, is to me, a waste of time because the answer is obviously no, the idea of "rights" was constructed by those who founded our society, and those from whom our founders learned, etc. But to argue that a philosophy/political view is "bullshit" simply because it supports and defends the very core upon which our society has been based is something i think only an unintelligent and very unrealistic person would do.

p.s. sorry if this is really late or something, first time here :)