Is nihilism even feasible as an ideology?

You don't understand what nihilism is. You can still advocate something along minimise pain maximise pleasure lines.

>who has a set of values (and in doing so, at least implicitly, claims they have meaning
>is contradicting themselves, and they're being irrational
>Them saying it's okay for them to do so because there's no basis for logic or rationality either confirms the point.
Jesus even for /pol/ crossposting that's a new low

not that guy, but you're wrong
having a set of morals implies believing there is such a thing as "moral truth". a moral nihilist doesn't believe in moral truths
I recommend Andrew Fisher's "Metaethics" for a quick rundown

Nigga, do you even capital? Basically all of economics run on the principle that nothing has inherent value other than the economical ones we artificially impute. You're living in a nihilist dystopia right about now.

Not necessarily. You can advocate for say fiscal equality not because you value equality but because you're below the median and want a quick buck.

Ironically, nihilism is a pointless philosophy for dictating ones life..

t. nihilist

How does that imply you uphold a moral value?
Pro-tip: it doesn't.

The fact is that, like OP posited, nihilism is basically impossible to achieve. It would require a very broken human being to even begin to approach something near actual nihilism

>How does that imply you uphold a moral value?
That's what I just said. You can advocate morals without considering them moral truth just because they minimise pain maximise pleasure.

>nihilism is basically impossible to achieve. It would require a very broken human being to even begin to approach something near actual nihilism
You simply don't understand what nihilism is.
Also you are a nihilist.

A hypothetical individual advocating for a policy that'll benefit him is not acting based on morals; in this very unrealistic scenario, he's acting merely of self-interest. There's no morality involved. A moral act or assertion implies belief in morality.
Like I said, it's very difficult even to conceptualize how a nihilist would act. Most people that claim to be nihilists are, in fact, moral relativists. These are common.

moral nihilists believe there's lots of moral truths, just no objective ones. so, cutting off someone's hand for stealing is a moral truth as much as saving babies from buildings on fire, because the people who believe in them don't stop existing in moral nihilism, they're just equally wrong about a question many people get wrong.

being a moral nihilist doesn't mean you don't believe morals exist, but that you don't believe they objectively exist as moral truths independent of people. that people believe in moral truths doesn't make those moral truths objective by any stretch, which is why they all contradict each other.

for instance, one of the great examples of moral nihilism used by most moral nihilists is religion.

>moral nihilists believe there's lots of moral truths,
You're thinking about moral relativists. A nihilist simply believes there's no such thing as intrinsic morals, be it objective or subjective, universal or relative, truth-apt or not. Read Fisher's "Metaethics"

>A hypothetical individual advocating for a policy that'll benefit him
>in this very unrealistic scenario
>he's acting merely of self-interest
Jesus Christ do you even read what you write

>that'll benefit him is not acting based on morals
That's the origin of all morals. Welcome to nihilism sweetie.

>There's no morality involved
Why is Veeky Forums a magnet for people who just disagree without reading the thread or discussion just to look smart. The post in question was
>Do you mean a feasible ideology for protest movements, or for revolution, or for socialism/communism/anarchism/whatever? The answer is no. The reason why is because a "nihilist" who protests is still an advocate for something he/she values, such as equality or liberty or something. These are all values which nihilism itself attacks.
Which I demonstrated to be false and this falsification you didn't challenge

>A moral act or assertion implies belief in morality.
Which still isn't what nihilism is about. When I said you don't understand what nihilism is I didn't say that to insult you but to invite you to look it up. I believe evolution provided us with morality that benefits tribe survival. Tribe survival however has no inherent value or meaning. You completely misunderstand the question at hand.

>Like I said, it's very difficult even to conceptualize how a nihilist would act. Most people that claim to be nihilists are, in fact, moral relativists
This is actually kinda cute.

it's philosophy not ideology you cumstain

>A nihilist simply believes there's no such thing as intrinsic morals, be it subjective
Jesus Christ stop posting

A nihilist, like a moral skeptic, believes there's no such thing as moral knowledge. He would act based on anything but morals. Drop your contentions and open a book.

That's exactly correct, my dude. A nihilist doesn't believe in moral truth, moral knowledge or the truth-aptness of moral statements.

>moral nihilism ignores reality
It's a pity Nietzsche wrote a lot of books and got better known than Fisher. Pity too that Stirner did too, and Machiavelli, and all of them saw not just a proliferation of morals but several practical uses for them.

Now, if they were material nihilists who don't believe people exist, your proposition could work.

My assertion about "ignoring reality" was about total nihilism, not moral nihilism.

Moral nihilism is compatible with things such as the expressivist theory ie. morals don't exist, when people utter a moral assertion they're, in fact, uttering a knee-jerk psychological reaction to some event that doesn't amount to morals, isn't premissed on moral knowledge or moral realism.

My problem is that you think moral nihilsts don't believe that people hold moral truths, when they do, because to do otherwise, they would need to ignore reality and be worse at their jobs.

>think moral nihilsts don't believe that people hold moral truths
they believe all moral claims are baseless and moral knowledge doesn't exist, hence there are no moral truths. I moral nihilist probably knows people act and believe as if they're guided by moral knowledge, but he himself thinks that knowledge doesn't exist. He doesn't believe moral truth is possible.

That's why I said they held that they exist but none are objective. You seemed to think that was relativism, but relativism holds that moral truths exist within context, not universally, but are still objective. However, moral nihilists maintain those objectively exist, and they're all objectively false regardless of context. As I said before you wanted to talk about the one intro book you read.

A moral nihilist believe there's no right or wrong. Period. They believe there are reasons which lead people to believe in morals, but they're all socially constructed by their psyche or material conditions. There's neither universal moral truth nor relative moral truth. He believes all moral assertions are incorrect because moral truths simply don't exist. Neither morality nor ethics exist: they are all made-up fantasies.
I have to leave now.

A true nihilist would say there's no inherent value in logical conversation at all.

No it doesn't, it just implies that the nihilist has chosen to adopt a set of truths. It can be complex arbitrary and they can freely admit they don't think there is any moral truth, but they can still have a set of morals.

Wrong. In order to have any morals you must believe there's right and wrong.
I really need to leave now, I'll be back to this thread later

And that right and wrong a nihilist can choose arbitrarily

Arbitrarily picking right and wrong still means believing there's such a thing as right and wrong, something a nihilist can't say

>Arbitrarily picking right and wrong still means believing there's such a thing as right and wrong
Yes, but not an objective and inherent right and wrong, and nihilists just have to reject supposedly objective and inherent morality

>they always seemed to still have values and some kind of morals
I'm not a nihilist but you don't seem to understand what it is. Just because someone believes there's no inherent, objective morality or meaning doesn't mean they can't hold subjective morals and values based on empathy (which is simply a tool 'developed' to continue human survival)

A lot of so-called nihilists are just poorly read and reasoned existentialists.

If life lacks meaning, acting in a certain rigid manner because of your nihilistic beliefs is also meaningless, you faggots.

iep.utm.edu/nihilism/

>A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.

A true nihilist can't hold values of any kind. He could rely only on purely instrumental courses of action that don't rely on values when confronted with a situation

When most people refer to "nihilism" they're actually talking about some subset of nihilism, not the total rejection of values. That would be impossible, I think

the concept of nihilism in itself is a contradiction. or better said. a concept outside from nihilism.
is the notion of lack of believing from a "believing" place.
ii explain myself like shit, anyway.

Actually that should make the most sense to everyone in here confusing it with "weak nihilisms" such as moral relativism, existentialism and so on and so on (sniff).

An emergent intelligent can be nihilistic if its only possible mental movements involve actions with no reflection, but us humans, we hardly actually play the part, and claiming to be a nihilist is much less useful than specifying WHAT is it that you're nihilistic about.

intelligence*

Yes. If you need a purpose to get out of bed in the morning you're just addicted to purpose.

Ethics do exist for moral nihilists. That's what a socially constructed set of morals is. It's just that medical ethics and ethics in 5th C BC Attica are equally not just, as in relativism, socially constructed formations which people operate by, but that describing them as such is itself a socially constructed formation.

The reason religion is a major example for moral nihilists is not that it's a series of proposed social norms, but because nobody is holy. Or, in other words, the proposed social norm or a description of relative ethics, no matter how small the sample size, will not yield consisent results.

Social relativists believe that people operate to the norms they describe. Nihilists believe that people only believe they adhere to them, while all the time doing things they know violate their proposed morals. For relativists, those people are relatively immoral. For nihilists, those people are nihilists.

everyone's a nihilist for moral nihilists

You can protest to negate or abolish things.