What did he mean by this?

Life has meaning for life's sake. Death has meaning for death's sake.

...and what kind of nerds discuss this in text messages?

>>9919613
I still don't think that was his point, from what I can tell now after reading this billions of times over he means that the very idea that one can reject propositions of the inherent meaning of life (thus rendering you a nihilist) preposes a sort of eminence of truth. In other words, our minds are transcendent enough to grasp that we are meaningless, thus there must be some meaning out there.

Also, you're asking why people would discuss this over text... on lit.

>>9919602
Pweasse show boobies.

File: IMG_2565.jpg (50KB, 400x286px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 400x286px

>>9919613
>>9919639
>>9919643
If I can change this discussion to "How exactly is the rejection of purpose purposefully significant?" That would be great.

>>9919661
I think the main point is differentiating not having a purpose at all, i.e., being "below" the ability to think in terms of purpose, from choosing no purpose, i.e., being "above" the need to think in terms of a purpose.

But then the issue becomes whether you CAN actually operate from this second perspective. If you reject purpose, is this not still choosing purposelessness AS a goal? It's like how you can't not communicate. Even ignoring someone communicates something to them.

>>9919661
It's still creating purpose just in a confusing way.

>>9919602
>>9919872

These critiques are internally logically consistent but ultimately misunderstand nihilism.

Nihilism is not a goal. It is the absence of goals.

If you choose not to have a goal, you're not nihilist, just chaotic.

In nihilism, meaning is not a choice; the concept of meaning is obsolete.

This rests on a conception of experience which appeals to ontological objectivity.

Therefore nihilism is not the rejection of constructed concepts, as the OP conjectures. It is the recognition that the construction of those concepts is unnecessary.

But experience can only ever be ontologically subjective. It is irrelevant to experience whether meaning, value, etc. can be validated objectively. Therefore nihilism too is ultimately misguided in its appeal to objectivity.

>>9919602
If you say "everything is meaningless,"
then by that same virtue to say "everything is meaningless" is meaningless - or is it? Either way, it introduces you to the end of logic and language - you know: c'est ne pipe pas.

why don't you fucking ask him instead of shitposting here

>>9920409
You don't NEED to build a house, but you can.

So building one, and not building one, are both choices.