>>7599191 Overall Nihilists are convinced that nothing has any meaning, which leads to some of them effectively wanting to destroy what we have due to the non-existence of the meaning we ascribe to what we have. They are post-structuralists in their sense of looking at the signified, but where the post-structuralists merely observe, the nihilist tries to deconstruct in the hopes of destroying.
>>7599391 Explain to me how Nihilism is not destructive in nature and I will happily concede. Perhaps I went a bit far with my comparison to post-structuralism, but the essence is that Nihilism is destructive in nature. Even Nietzsche stated that Nihilism would eventually destroy all morals and everything else we hold dear due to the nature of Nihilism.
>>7599422 Nihilism can be destructive in the sense that people of lesser intellectual leanings, often Christian apologists who ask "what's to stop me from raping or killing, if there is no absolute moral law" types, can than take the idea of no "intrinsic value" and just run with it to their own selfish ends. However, they will come quickly to realize that not everyone shares their opinion and probably won't do well, just because one is a nihilist doesn't mean that one doesn't create one's values. Nietzsche himself called for a transvaluation of all values, in other words a seeking throughout all of man's human constructed values and seeing which would be worthy in the post Christian society that he foresaw and feared; precisely because he feared those who could not take the truth that no intrinsic meaning existed, we had to make our own meaning and had been doing it all along; now we'd just be conscious of it. I cannot see why understanding that nothing has any "intrinsic meaning" is destructive, the meaning we as individuals give it should be enough, sure that meaning may mean nothing in the end but by than I'll be dead and won't know that my opinion on the subject is void. As an example, marriage has changes many definitions and thereby meanings over the years/century's and yet it's meaning of one hundred years ago is now different than it is today. Is the definition meaningless now? Or has our culture just changed, for convenience, the properties of marriage to suit our new society; the answer is obvious. However, it would basically make the term 'marriage' in an absolute sense of the word, meaningless. Morality is no exception, what once was 'moral' is now abominable, it was once moral to take slaves, no so any longer. Morality has changed and shifted with humanity as humanity has changed and shifted, this is exactly what Nietzsche wanted people to do, create their own morals, the Ubermench was a person who did this and transcended the old ways of religious dogmatism and inflexible/irrational moral absolutes. Gay's aren't to be stoned, they're to be loved; an exact contradiction in accordance to pious teachings of morality. Nihilism goes farther though, it applies to our philosophy as well, and forces us to make changes throughout in order shape the future that is to come by being flexible. We will change again, precisely because no 'intrinsic meaning' exists. This does not apply to things like science which are cold calculations in mathematical terms, science describes reality, it gives it no meaning beyond the meaning we give it. Nihilism has destroyed all morals, in the sense that it has shown us that we are morality's maker and enforcer, thereby morality is not 'intrinsic' to the universe, the universe is cruel and unjust unless we bring justice to it; and justice itself only has meaning to those who believe in justice. Over all I would say that humanity's struggle is to understand that all we create has no 'intrinsic' meaning.
>>7599553 The changing of the signifier (as the meaning changes) eventually does lead to what Nietzsche in 'Will to Power' describes as effectively destroying: the nihilist takes and destroys meaning, which also means that a changing of a meaning effectively destroys. I wouldn't say that humanity struggles with understanding that we all have separate meanings, but we do have to all come to terms with the fact that meaning does not have to be changed to get meaning. The signified stays the signified.
The best philosophy is pragmatism, because it adheres to no rules other than "you do what you gotta do"
If you prefer a certain way of living, one with rules, as a pragmatist you could simply adopt those values and beliefs and traits and what have you
I could, pragmatically, adopt stoicism, for example, if I believed it would make my life easier,
All of this, for me, is rooted in nihilism, but I don't usually say I believe in nihilism (pragmatically) because while I know you can't prove any inherent meaning, you can't actually disprove it either.
I know that meaning or lack of said isn't something you can prove, it's something unknowable. But my gut instinct says there's nothing. Why would there be?
Unrelated, you can easily argue with the religious by saying there's no argument that can specifically be used for their God. At best you can say the mechanics of universe imply a creator, but that's >implying and also a shit argument generally because it makes no sense. That could just be the way shit is. More "There's no way to know for sure either way" stuff. So anyway you just say even if a creator is implied, whose to say it's the judeo-christian god? Or even a god and not somekind of Lovecraft horror.
>>7600259 We can pragmatically 'go along to get along' but in doing so we are accepting the inevitable 'value' changes that take place, so yes, pragmatism can fully remain functional in nihilism. I still do not understand how nihilism is intrinsically destructive; as nihilism itself argues against intrinsic value judgments in and of themselves. Would this not make nihilism benign, unless of course one values it as destructive. I view myself as a passive nihilist, I in no way work to destroy meaning, lest of course said thing is destructive in it's own right; aka religions/political irrationality. But I cannot see why changing meanings is destructive, unless one argues that the previous meaning was destroyed and thereby said thing 'in idea space' was obliterated. To change does not intrinsically mean to destroy, though one can do such a thing, and yes, destruction is not inherently bad; many things are not worth defending of preserving. Yes, I would agree that all persons struggle with meaning, both collectively and individually, but this is inevitable and part of the very frame of nihilistic thinking, the perpetual flux of definition exemplifies the very argument that nothing has meaning beyond what we ascribe to it.
>>7599211 >there is no meaning apart from what we ascribe meaning Then it's not nihilism. Nihilism is the strongest form of anti-realism. If you're a nihilist then you believe that something doesn't exist fullstop. It's not some alternative account of how the thing in question is grounded by human practices. If nihilism is true, then there is no meaning to be ascribed.
Thread replies: 32 Thread images: 3
Thread DB ID: 435717
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.