If you follow the philosophy of nihilism then wouldn't everything

>>17261851
Everything we experience is the result of evolution, adaptation, natural selection, etc.
And it can be quantified. You can now measure the emotions of a human brain. The electric impulses. The chemicals. Everything.


Welcome to the real world pleb :3

>>17261851
no

>>17261851
What? No.

>>17261863
Youre tradh for failing to understand ehat ops question was and what nihilism is.
>off yourself fucker

>>17261851
The fuq....?

>>17261863
>2016
>still pretending to know everything
meatbag

OP here

I feel like the meaning of nihilism has been twisted over the years to pull it out of the trap it puts itself in

What nihilism really boils down to is that you can never TRULY know anything. One thing is just as likey as the next because we'll never know

File: 2000px-Maltese_cross.svg.png (71KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 2000x2000px

>>17261851
But anon, that's solipsism.

>>17261920
It really doesn't boil down to that at all anon, at least learn what nihilism means before you ask something like that.

Nihilism doesn't mean that we can't know anything, it just asserts that there's no grand plan, or fate, or anything else of the like. You could understand why things happen on a chemical level, for example, but you wouldn't assume that there's any grand design behind chemistry working to begin with.

>>17261920
Yeah, sorry, that's dead wrong. You're describing extreme relative knowledge, a completely different thing.

Nihilism is the rejection of moral, ethical, social or religious imperatives, declaring any and all action to be entirely arbitrary in abstract value.

>>17261963
Maybe I misinterpreted it then

But doesn't nihilism stem from that? Just being selective and edgier in what can be known?

>>17261978
No it really doesn't. You can know as much or as little as you want as a nihilist, you just can't assume that things have values like being inherently good or bad; they just are.

>>17261995
But if you don't believe there's a guiding force or truth to the universe how can you put any meaning or value in any information? Naw what I mean?

>>17261851
Seems like it goes on forever until you're born.

>>17261978
Kinda just the opposite, I think.

Though certainly people throughout time have challenged social assumptions, the latest, greatest and most popular were/are the existentialist movement, which lead directly to nihilism by pointing out that while people claimed to support things like absolute, objective morality, no such thing could be discovered and that all ethical/moral/social codes seemed to be more or less arbitrary. People followed them, it was argued, through a mixture of social inertia, indoctrination and the general human bent for conformity. However, to really figure things out, and to have an ethical or moral code with any rational substance, one had to strip away the trappings of the local subjective dogma.

In some cases, people committed that first step but then never bothered with the rebuilding, concluding that any new ethical code would be equally arbitrary and meaningless. These are our nihilists.

The epistemological counterpart occurred subsequent to that, (more or less, there have again always been people who proposed that certain knowledge was impossible.) With moral absolutism tossed to the wind, the question for what knowledge was certain became more vigorously pursued and it was determined by most that absolute knowledge appeared impossible.

Now, some took this to an extreme. Some philosophies go so far as to suggest that all communication is a farce and that even this dialogue is just a sham, with no real information being passed back and forth between us at all; that the ability to verify knowledge is impossible. So in a sense, that's a wayward child of nihilism, not its predecessor.

However, most conclude, and indeed they must if they want to keep discussing the subject, that while certain knowledge is impossible, probable knowledge is not, and we can reach extremely well informed conclusions about what's "almost certainly" true. That's the current popular "learned" and popular state of philosophy today.

File: 1450925820347.gif (290KB, 213x109px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 213x109px

>>17261963
SNAP!

>>17261894
From discussion on nihilism to revealing yourself as a narcissist.

Classic.

File: 1452798585808s.jpg (5KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x200px

>>17262031
I see what you're saying, but honestly it just sounds like a lot of HOOPLAH to me. I feel like things only have meaning or value if they are validated by an ultimate truth. If you don't believe in an ultimate higher truth I don't see how these other "truths" can stand up on their own

>>17262064
Okay, so let's test the validity of your claim. I'll give you three hypothetical examples.

1. You're picking oranges. You have one orange in your hand now. You pick two more, and are holding on to them. Do you need some "ultimate higher truth" to exist for you to know that you now have "more oranges."?

2. You wake up for breakfast. You have the option of having a tall glass of orange juice or a tall glass of draino. Do you actually need an "ultimate higher truth" to decide you want the orange juice?

3. You and I are sitting at a table. There's a butcher's knife there. You have the option, naturally, of picking up the knife and stabbing me with it. I have, in the past, specifically expressed a desire not to be stabbed. Do you need an "ultimate higher truth" to make the decision not to stab me?

Or can you actually reach these conclusions on your own, with only relative knowledge and abstract, informed but uncertain conclusions? Because to date that, as near as we can tell, is all you or any other human ever has been using to make their decisions.

Also, inb4 (hopefully) that emotionally crippled little cretin rushes in here to scream, "My GOD is the ultimate truth GAWWWWWD MY GAAWWWWD." That idiot is just an immature and ignorant waste clinging desperately to the popular culture he's been indocrinated with because he's scared, literally terrified to accept he's made a mistake in his beliefs. No religious dogma isn't an ultimate truth, that's just a cheap lie those desperate for personal stability in their lives tell themselves and others.

>>17261851
Yes. That's pretty much where science is headed right now. Nihilism is one of my all-time favorite philosophies.

>>17262112
>>17262117
Like I said, I get what you're saying. But how can anyone know what "truth" really is? It varies person to person. What if Im allergic to and don't like the taste of orange juice and I'd rather die so I pick the drano. (I know this is outlandish and seems unlikey but it's still possible) That would be the truth as I saw it. And no nihlist could tell me it's wrong because they don't believe in morality etc. so I would have no responsibility to live life.

I just think it's very weird and picky to just rule out some topics altogether from philosophical discussion

>>17262165
No, that sounds perfectly reasonable. But see how you were able to rely on and even explain the basis for your decision without appealing to an ultimate higher truth?

>>17262165
>What if Im allergic to and don't like the taste of orange juice and I'd rather die so I pick the drano.
You and I have communicated. We have shared a personal truth. And we both understand it. Why is that not enough? Why do we need an ultimate higher truth to have done what we just did (hypothetically and literally!)?

>>17262165
>I just think it's very weird and picky to just rule out some topics altogether from philosophical discussion
I absolutely agree, and definitely do believe everything should be on the table. That being said, there are some "advanced level" philosophies that can derail all conversation. The "no communication is possible" version of epistemology is one example. I mean, that's a valid possible argument, but what the hell's the point of having it? To debate, we must just accept certain conclusions, whether we've "proven" them or not. One of those conclusions, essential to conversation, debate and philosophy itself, is that knowledge is both possible and communicable. So it's not that those topics are off the table so much as they have to be wielded with especial care.

>>17262185
You make some sense. I just still think it's not good that someone who calls themself a nihilist comes into the conversation with an anti-moral and anti-spiritual bias. But I guess they have their own reasoning and steps they took to get there. I guess nihilism just isn't for me

>>17262227
Not to be all judgmental, but yeah, I consider nihilism a fairly lazy personal philosophy. It's almost more like being too lazy to develop a personal philosophy.

>>17262250
You're thinking of solipsism. True nihilism is more akin to what you'd attribute to Buddhism. (Which isn't necessarily the same as actual Buddhism.)

>>17261863
>not understanding epistemology

>>17261920
>What nihilism really boils down to is that you can never TRULY know anything.
That's "academic skepticism", to be distinguished from "pyrrhonian skepticism".

Whereas academic skepticism, with Carneades as its most famous adherent, claims that "Nothing can be known, not even this", Pyrrhonian skeptics withhold any assent with regard to non-evident propositions and remain in a state of perpetual inquiry. [...] According to them, even the statement that nothing can be known is dogmatic. - wikipedia "Pyrrhonism"

I think you could call those positions Nihilistic - I wouldn't, but Nihilism is vague like that it depends on your value system. Christians say atheists are nihilistic.

>>17261921
He said you experience things external to you, only that you're unable to quantify it.

>>17261958
There are multiple uses of the word "nihilism", his description fits at least one of them.

>>17263448
>>17263454
"Subjective nihilism" is an oxymoron. The philosophy itself isn't hard to grasp at all, and it certainly doesn't depend on your perception of reality.

>>17261963
>Nihilism is the rejection of moral, ethical, social or religious imperatives
That is only one use of the term nihilism.

>>17261995
so true or false isn't a value?

>>17262031
>In some cases, people committed that first step but then never bothered with the rebuilding, concluding that any new ethical code would be equally arbitrary and meaningless. These are our nihilists.
If you use it as an insult, maybe. That isn't how people like that self-identify, not in every case at least - and it's a misleading term in that it's defining it negatively - as if there's an absence of something which doesn't fit with the experience of all the people who reject "systems of value".

>>17262112
>Do you need some "ultimate higher truth" to exist for you to know that you now have "more oranges."?
Yes, if there has to be something sustaining consistency of observation over time - or drawing a connection between your perception of reality and reality itself.

>>17262118
Science isn't entitled to have an opinion on questions of value.

>>17263456
I'm saying who you label or see as nihilist is a matter of perception in the sense of nihilism as a "rejection of a held value" so christians see atheists as nihilistic, epistemological "believers" see skeptics as nihilistic, animists see materialist scientists as nihilistic etc. >>17261920 is referring to skeptics as nihilists.

>The philosophy isn't hard to grasp
It wasn't ever specified which nihilism we're talking about - it's an umbrella term encompassing politics as well as the subjective aspect I described above.

>>17263471
And that's what I love about it; it gets to the details of reality without trying to morally objectivise everything.
>>17263486
>it's an umbrella term
It isn't. If the term is used pejoratively, fine, but there's an actual philosophy behind the term that's separate from the pejorative use of the term. This is a real philosophy that people actually believe in. The notion that pejoratives are at all relevant is entirely non-constructive to the discussion.

>>17263507
>It isn't. If the term is used pejoratively, fine, but there's an actual philosophy behind the term
there is an actual philosophy of nihilism, but that isn't where the term nihilism comes from - it started as a political movement in russia. I'm not only talking about the pejorative use, that is a major issue of it as well but having read about the types and aspects of nihilism I think it's historically incorrect to present nihilism as a single, coherent idea.

mainly I object to labelling someone as a nihilist if they're a skeptic, either academic or pyrrhonian - nihilism implies a statement about absence of value in the world and a pyrrhonian skeptic wouldn't make that statement for sure and academic skeptics are at least ambiguous about where they stand (ie. "nothing can be known to be true including this statement").

The essence of my objection is that a method (skepticism) is being presented as a belief or value system (nihilism).

I still think it isn't clear what the OP is referring to - nihilism doesn't suggest "nothing can be known and quantified" if you take nihilism as only referring to moral value unless you see moral value as encompassing truth value (which I have some sympathy for).

>>17263550
Right. I guess my point is that the world in whole has grown past the idea of pejorative connotations and it really is pointless to bring it up. I'm not saying you don't have a right to your moral, political, or ethical opinions, but that they've been adopted by so many people that it really is up to preference whether anyone wants to subscribe to those old-world notions or not. It really doesn't matter to me what people say so long as they're not summoning demons of war.

OP didn't mean to be specific about the term, so it doesn't help to debate that either.

Moreover, this isn't a formal debate and it doesn't matter what OP intended. My opinion on nihilism is a distinct and separate proposition from anything OP might have posited. Mine is about the philosophy as a philosophy, not as a cohesion of interrelated events in and extending from Russia.

>>17261863
Art thou daft?

Know ye not the wonderous state of what it be like to be or art thou simply blinded by what be?

Forget not duality.

>>17262388
If I were thinking of solipsism, I would have said, "solipsism.' I am thinking of and describing nihilism.

>>17263465
No, that's not meant as an insult and I know people, personally, who have both employed that reasoning and embraced the title. And it does, by definition, describe the absence of something, belief in the value of ethical/moral/religious/social value constructs. But that's like saying atheism is the absence of the believe in gods, true but really just a clumsy rewording.

>>17263469
Really? I don't see either intuitive reasoning or "my eyes" as ultimate higher truths.

>>17263802
You're describing what of it you can comprehend. I beg to differ on the matter; to truly understand the nothingness of reality is entirely unintuitive and it's certainly not anyone's lazy "default" philosophy.

>>17263822
"What you can comprehend." No no, you're just emotionally attached to the idea somehow and as a result you're demanding it be treated as if special.

You're going to have to work a little harder to convince me that it's not a lazy stall in philosophical evaluation than trying to tell me I just can't comprehend how deep it really is.

>>17263834
>you're just emotionally attached to the idea
Damn straight. Luckily for me, you're nothing but a shitposter on 4chan and there has never been a way for your shitty opinion to matter when it comes to defining terms like "nihilism." I don't give a shit about you, just the appearance of your opinion. Alls I'm saying is that your opinion is shit. I don't really care to argue it if you're going to act as shitty as your opinion is.

Isn't it nice when we can put our emotions up front?

>>17263856
Then I'll continue to converse with people both willing and able to have polite, coherent conversations which are enriching to all parties, something that this thread fortunately has several of. Adieu, anon, adieu!

>>17263878
Cya around. I'll be the anon you have the most fun talking to when you exhibit respect for the feelings and opinions of others. I can't guarantee you'll feel very good about those other times though.

Though, I should probably point out that it's a bit redundant to announce that you're leaving a thread.

Seems like both of you guys practice monkeyism, which is the belief that the self is right no matter what.

File: troll.jpg (10KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 275x183px

>>17263900
Seems like you're trying to troll a troll.

File: trollception.jpg (20KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 275x183px

>>17263909
Seems like you're trying to troll a troll.

>>17263900
I practice reactive "fuck you"ism. Basically I treat people in the shittiest manner I can reasonably fathom as soon as they give me reason to do so. I don't have many opportunities to really practice it anywhere else, so I really appreciate shitposting culture. Basically I figure anyone using 4chan has already consented to shitty behavior, so it's just a matter of how they present themselves on a post by post basis. If they show respect, they get respect back. If they don't, they get instant karma. It really is a beautiful system in my book.

Maybe 'conditional respect' would be a better term.

>>17261851
A lazy faggot made this image. It doesn't go on forever, it stops after 11

File: ninja revenge.gif (4MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 480x360px

>>17263918
tl:dr

(pic unrelated)

>>17263918
Really? Because it looks like you were the first person to be condescending.

>>17263918
you are so painfully close to not being wrong about things

>>17263922
11 is pretty close to forever though

why did my post get deleted

>>17263922
SEEMS.

>>17263929
Honestly don't give a shit at this point.
>>17263930
Could be. Either that or your perception of other's states of being is warped such that someone who literally gives zero fucks triggers all the right things that are just on the periphery of what you can't decide about just yet.

File: cruise.jpg (3KB, 128x140px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 128x140px

>>17263945
Gives zero fucks.

Defends his position repeatedly on an internet messageboard.

>>17263999
Don't let me have all the fun; you can defend your position too. It can be pretty liberating if you do it right.

No fucks required. Opinions are literally worth shit.

File: turtlefight.jpg (418KB, 1600x1201px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 1600x1201px

>>17264021
I don't have a position. I'm just the guy that trolled you dontcarehards into arguing with each other some more.

>>17263999
What he's trying to do at this point is prove what a "nihilist" he is. But, as you point out, all he's demonstrating is how oversensitive he is about what he claims to not care about.

It's unfortunate, as acting like an asshole to show off a commitment to nihilism is both self defeating and immaterial, so all we end up with is someone acting like a bargain bin troll.

>>17263945
i said "painfully close" for a reason.
>as soon as they give me reason to do so
>it's just a matter of how they present themselves
>If they show respect, they get respect back
>'conditional respect'
you do not give zero fucks. you have invented a conditional moral code that you abide by when interacting with others. and the bedrock of your moral code is the purposive adoption of "giving no fucks" as a philosophy.
so you're moralizing. and that's fine. it's actually what every human being on earth does. including me.
but please remember that actively and consciously "giving no fucks" to the point where you have an internet conversation about it still counts as giving one (1) fuck.

painfully. close.

>>17264030
The other anon stopped responding awhile ago.

It... It doesn't take fucks to post on 4chan. This really isn't some monumental or willful effort on my part. I get where you're coming from, but... Still, it feels a lot like zero fuck given to me.
>>17264037
I'm not a nihilist. It's one of my favorite philosophies, but it only that. I don't actually take it to heart and I don't subscribe to any of the beliefs I think a nihilist should hold in order to be a nihilist. I'm more of a fan than anything else.
>>17264046
Well, no. Again; I'm not a nihilist. I give lots of fucks about many things, but I wouldn't consider nihilism a form of giving zero fucks in the first place. What I give zero fucks about is this. This thread, you people. Your subjective impressions of me. There's literally no way for me to give a fuck if you have a proper image of me and my philosophy or not. It's not you who I consider my audience.

I give fucks about explaining my perspective, but it isn't for your benefit or the fucks you could give me back. I do it more or less because I have nothing else to do right now.

>>17264072
tl;dr

>>17264072
>I give lots of fucks about many things
well that's a proper sea change from >>17263945 where you implied that you were, and i quote, "someone who literally gives zero fucks."

>What I give zero fucks about is this. This thread, you people. Your subjective impressions of me.
>I give fucks about explaining my perspective
you can't have it both ways.

>>17264083
>not my audience
>>17264106
>you implied that you were, and i quote, "someone who literally gives zero fucks."
Yeah, I did do that. It's the image I was aware you would see. It's also mostly accurate for this thread.

>you can't have it both ways.
The implication is basically that your impression of me has fuck all to do with my perspective. I can share it as far and as wide as I care to and nothing you do, say, or think will really matter or affect that in any meaningful way. It's hard to explain, but it's not for your benefit, even if you're the only people that will ever read it. Might be an irrational desire, I don't really know.

>>17261851
Looks like you don't know what nihilism is

>>17264127
>your impression of me has fuck all to do with my perspective
then either you're inept at communicating what exactly your perspective is or you're unwilling to do so.
if it's for lack of an audience, i understand. but i am your audience now. so please tell me about your perspective.
if you really have one.

>>17264127
Man, could you shut up and fuck off? We get it, you're a huge retard, moving on.

>>17261851
Just like cucks claim their invisible joke is responsible for my dick

>>17264162
Not really. If someone shows interest I pretty much feel obliged to share.
>>17264160
Well the first point is that nihilism isn't a lazy lack of philosophy. Human consciousness tends a bit towards solipsism, but obviously most of us aren't solipsistic so we know there's a divergence there. We also have a strong tendency to think we exist, somehow. This automatically pushes nihilism into the realm of unintuitive philosophies. To say or feel that reality isn't made up of anything and that nothing is ultimately real is obviously false for a lot of people. It takes a strong background in logic to get to he point of saying nothing exists. You have to deeply understand logic to the degree that you can understand logic itself as nonexistent and go from there. It's certainly not an easy thought to come by.

I'm not sure I can explain why I'm a fan of it though.

I guess I just like the idea. It's attractive to me.

>>17264188
Nihilism doesn't say, "nothing exists." That's already been covered.

Also, logic can't result in that conclusion. Logic itself relies on things existing, including set rules. You're not actually an educated person. You're another kid passing off words you don't understand pretending to be educated. That's pretty fucking pathetic.

>>17264188
>You have to deeply understand logic to the degree that you can understand logic itself as nonexistent and go from there.
you're fucking with me at this point aren't you

>>17264072
dontcarehard still dontcareharding with multiple quotes

you go girl

>>17264199
>That's pretty fucking pathetic.
Sure, sure. Logic only exists after you've been taught formal reasoning. That's an argument you can convince me of on 4chan of all places.

No, actually. I spent a good while thinking about it and there's nothing wrong with asking, "What if logic didn't exist?" It turns out you can still think and reason when you take that hypothetical seriously, so that right there is direct evidence that logic doesn't depend on the assumption that logic exists. More abstractly, you can still *imagine* the space of possibilities that exists when logic isn't taken as an axiomatic form of existence. In mind's eyes and dreams we can imagine things that quite literally don't make sense, but are perceptible just as much as anything else we can imagine is. You can, by discarding axiomatic reasoning, imagine a square circle. It doesn't make any sense, but it's a thing your mind can do nevertheless.

If you're seriously going to sit here on /x/ and argue that ZFC is the basis of all logic, we're going to need to get into Godel territory. If you're as well studied as you think I'm not, you should know well what the incompleteness theorems actually mean.
>>17264223
Depends. Does the word "phenomenology" appear to make sense to you? If it doesn't, we're probably too far apart cognitively for me to care to insist that I'm being genuine here.
>>17264233
You overestimate the value of my personal time.

>>17264241
>No, actually. I spent a good while thinking about it and there's nothing wrong with asking, "What if logic didn't exist?" It turns out you can still think and reason when you take that hypothetical seriously, so that right there is direct evidence that logic doesn't depend on the assumption that logic exists. More abstractly, you can still *imagine* the space of possibilities that exists when logic isn't taken as an axiomatic form of existence. In mind's eyes and dreams we can imagine things that quite literally don't make sense, but are perceptible just as much as anything else we can imagine is. You can, by discarding axiomatic reasoning, imagine a square circle. It doesn't make any sense, but it's a thing your mind can do nevertheless.
That's a pretty long winded way to say that you weren't using logic at all, just your imagination. But I guess when you're lying to everyone and pretending to have a strong background in "logic" it's hard to admit you didn't use it at all without looking stupid.

But you still admitted you didn't use logic at all and you still ended up looking like a fucking retard. Good job, shit brain.

Look, what you're doing? Waste of your life. /x/ gets five, six of you a week if not a day, teens and poorly educated 20-somethings who aggressively try to paint themselves as useless to excuse the fact that they are, actually, useless, but there's really no reason the rest of us should have to put up with bullshit this stupid and yeah, it's stupid. It isn't anything else, it's just stupid. So do you and us both a favor and go find something else to do with your time. I don't care how much it's "not worth," I'm not interested in any of your dumbass explanations which are drivel anyway, just fuck off.

>>17264256
I was and I wasn't. When you understand logic as a singular thing that can't be separated or divided, you can't really say whether a thought process is rational or not. When you polarize logic into truth and falsehood, you prevent yourself from thinking about greater algorithms and more complex axiom sets. It'd be less accurate to say I wasn't using logic while supposing about the implications of the nonexistence of logic because it was my intent to use logic even in that space of hypotheticals. You find that logic still works even when you suppose it doesn't exist, it just stops following the same rules.

I guess if I say "I was and I wasn't" you'll try to put that notion itself in a Boolean box, and that'll be a fallacy on your part. I was using logic while posing this hypothetical to myself, period. If you must try to force it into binary terms, I was using logic even while supposing logic didn't exist. It's completely untrue to say I wasn't using logic at any point.

I dunno I guess it seems to obvious to me that the world is so full of gradients that you seem retarded to me if you think logic is restricted to binary logic. You'll seem doubly retarded for being unable to grasp the idea that truth and facts aren't matters of black and white, and much as I'd like to say you're triply retarded to try to call me out the way you have, I don't actually believe that. Your ability to understand me isn't greatly affected by how much faith you place in my capacity to process abstract logic and reasoning. I can only honestly insist that you're doubly retarded; once for not getting it and a second time for not getting it when I rephrased it to emphasize a different axiom.

But then, I guess there's nobody to respond to me anymore. Oh well.

>>17264304
>it seems so obvious to me

>>17264304
What did I just say? I said fuck off. I don't want to hear your rambling bullshit. You've already been caught in several lies and hypocrisies. I've looked over everything else and it's just long winded drivel. You're a stupid fucking kid putting on airs because your life sucks. Get the fuck out. You're fucking useless.

Fuck off and, if you have a moment to spare, fucking kill yourself.

>>17264304
You're trying to explain logic to a militant atheist that doesn't believe militant atheism is a religion.

>>17264241
>we're probably too far apart cognitively
oh sweet jesus if only you knew

i'm not arguing against nihilism or solipsism. i'm a committed solipsist and nihilist, and an arrogant one to boot.
i would just like to know who posited that reality's inability to prove itself as real invalidates the art of logic.
logic isn't a philosophy. it's a methodology. even if you think the universe exists just to fuck with you (as i do) you still have to arrive at that conclusion using logic.
on a lot of levels, it's all we have.

>>17262117
You can be polite in dismissal of religious dogma but you don't need to be a cunt about it. Attacking the notion of God makes you look weak and makes atheists look like red pilled trash. Learn to reject without sounding like a child if you want to be taken seriously. Inb4 religious fag. I'm not religious, I don't follow a faith just someone who knows how to argue better than you.

>>17264328
Njobody attacked the notion of God you useless, lying, trolling little retarded cum stain. Fuck off.

>>17261963
So if I were a cognitive relativist or generally held the view of cognitivism would I have to reject nihilism? (genuine question, not trolling).

>>17264338
Whoever I responded to literally did you retarded cluster fuck. Learn to fucking read, get an education, just do something other than do whatever the fuck it is with your piss stain of a life.

solipsism is false. nihilism is false. these are vain deceptions of men.

>>17264354
here's your (You)

>>17264353
No they didn't. They called out that one idiot christian that runs around here screaming LORD over and over and pointed out religious dogma isn't an ultimate truth. Religious dogma isn't god you absolute fucking moron.

Seriously, you're bragging about arguing "more better" than people/ You can't even fucking comprehend what people are saying. You have shit for brains. Now get out.

>>17264354
Nihilism may well be true. There's no evidence of objective moral or ethical value in the universe.

When I say that I find nihilism lazy, that isn't to say that i find it wrong. Ultimately, logically, it's difficult to demonstrate logically that any human value has value beyond subjective emotional desire. At best we can cast blame for a little bit of it on biological imperatives thrust on use through evolution , but even that is something we can choose to abandon in value.

I, personally, have an ethical code, but I'll be the first to admit that it relies on subjective values i have, like concluding that human quality of life is a "positive" value. The only distinction is that many other humans at least claim to share it. But if a nihilist were to call it arbitrary or subjective, I'd have a hard time demonstrating them wrong, logically.

At best, I could claim that I use it as a pragmatic license to sponsor my own quality of life, kind of a social contract sort of thing. But then it isn't ethical, it's just self serving, pragmatic bargaining.

>>17264359
i am not sure what you mean by this post, but i am going to withdraw from this conversation because i think all these folks are justified in their reasoning

happy shilling if shill

the funny thing about human reasoning though is God is actually real and organized Christianity is actually real of all things

i think one of the big problem with people here on /x/ is that people trying to reach out only know how to do so by attempting to condition somebody and by conditioning

the great tragedy of the shills here on /x/ must be pride or something. whatever is preventing the communication, because the communication by profiling and conditioning i think is doomed to fail

>>17264313
>What did I just say?
You said you failed to comprehend my reasoning entirely. I don't really care to mince it some other way. That's all you said to me.
>>17264314
Then he's not my audience. I don't care how many people fail to get it; if there's one anon that gets it, they are my audience.
>>17264325
That makes is clearer. You're actually operating in a pretty lucid way. I fumbled to explain it myself because I've lost sense of what people think logic is. It's been a very long time since I thought of logic as something other than a methodology. Right now I literally have no reference frame to understand how logic could be called a philosophy.

>on a lot of levels, it's all we have.
That's what OP was trying to get at; that's not all we have. Nihilism can actually be seen as an amazingly spiritual philosophy because it states that existence itself is paranormal at every point in its continuity. As a nihilist, as OP implies it, you have access to pure perception and purer form of amazement than any other philosophy could ever naturally experience. I'm not sure myself where to draw the lines of what's logic and what's intuition, but I don't see logic as fundamental to any part of reality and I haven't done so for a very long time. I don't actually know if I'm still sane right now. I can assume that I'm not based on my apparent willingness to consider that I might be, but I don't immediately know how well I can trust that logic.

I dunno I guess I'm not good at explaining beauty.
>>17264346
I don't see why you would. All things are equal in their ability to be said to be nonexistent.
>>17264368
Man what happened? Your posts used to be pretty decent. Now you're pissed at me and you're flying off the handle at that anon. What gives?
>>17264376
>pragmatic bargaining
That's a nice word combination.
>>17264392
Only a few of the shills are actually that primitive. Most of them actually understand real subterfuge.

>>17264392
i think if the shills engaged people actively and cooperatively they'd have much more success

>>17264408
Probably they do. Obviously we just never think of those people as "shills."

>>17264421
I have a pretty good sense of the various motives that fly across this board. I can't identify all factions with 100% accuracy, but I can tell when they finally come forward and express themselves in the direct tone. It's generally pretty interesting stuff when they finally put themselves to saying it out loud.

>>17264399
>You're actually operating in a pretty lucid way.
lol tell me something i don't know.

you know that shitty old meme that goes like "insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results"?
well that's super hilarious and all, but the joke is that doing the same thing twice will
logic is all we solipsists have in this reality. if things don't work any conclusions about a super-system that might govern reality and logic have been drawn through logic
that's why that one post was funny. "did the guy who invented logic use logic?" fuck yeah he did lmao