There are no real Nihilists

Best according to what standard? You'll have a hard time arguing what "best means"

I like to party, for me extreme party dudes are the best of human potential. A lot of people hate poetry and think that it's a waste of human potential and that those dudes should just try to make money.

Also you will have a hard time arguing that survival is good as a species. Why should I care about where the species go and not just live comfortably my years out.

These are all questions that the moralist cannot answer, because nihilism is true.

Not him but here's one:
the pursuit of pleasure is itself insatiable. you will always want another dose, and in ever greater quantities. this will either eventually ruin you or kill you, sometimes both. even harmless pleasures like sitting around consuming idle entertainment can chip away at you, draining your productivity and causing sloth and all the miseries that follow it later.

You're making a pragmatic point not a moral you nihilist.

>the pursuit of pleasure is itself insatiable
No. Moderation exists.

>this will either eventually ruin you or kill you
kekekek

Your original point was why HEDONISM is wrong, implying no moderation being involved. Also never said I'm not a memelist you fat fucking neckbeard.

So what if it kills me? Maybe surviving to old age is not what I want and I want to leave fast and die young.

And who care about productivity?

You see, each one of us has different values, and we don't have any way to decide which values are better than others. Because the reason we like values is for aesthetic reasons not rational reasons.

We unconsciously have an image of what our good life looks like and there is no way to compare it because there is no way to go from what is to what should be.

You can't argue "you should not want to live like a rockstar, you should want to have a family" because then that person would just say "why? who says so?" "because it doesn't last" "it's ok I can live with it" "but you will sad" "but I would have lived how I wanted"

That is rooted in the autonomy of reason that Kant sees as the root of modernity. We decide what we want, what our values are, because there is nothing in the world (there are no moral facts) that can point us to that.

Suicide is the ultimate degenerate act, and if you don't care about it then your mentally ill.
> So what?!
Look, if you're so far gone you don't care about your own life than ok, fine. Eat yourself to death or whatever.

> Who cares about productivity?
Everyone, including you. Have you ever taken a look at the people in R9K? Their fucking miserable. Even if you don't want to admit it, humans are hard-wired to find fulfillment in certain things.

>the reason we like values is for aesthetic reasons not rational reasons.
Maybe for some people but not everyone.

>each one of us has different values
Sure.

>We unconsciously have an image of what our good life looks like
You can have the wrong image, and a lot of people do, or rather, they trick themselves into thinking they "want" something when they are really just enslaving themselves to their pleasure pursuits and ironically making themselves miserable.

Apologies for the typos.

Again, you can't come up with rational reasons. All you can say is "that is wrong!" "why?" "Well if you are so gone that you can't figure out you are a lost cause"

"Some desires are better than other" "how do you judge that" "if you think they are not you are just lying to yourself"

You see you are not being rational, you are just using ticks to shame the other person.

I mean I'm asking very simple questions, if there was an answer it wouldn't be hard to give it.

But you can't, so you are trying to throw sand in people's eyes.

If you want to be a philosopher, and not a sophist you have to take this seriously.

>Suicide is the ultimate degenerate act
It's considered honorable in many different cultures depending on the context.

Ok. Still degenerate to me.

but you see that's your personal preference. What you are saying is "I don't like it" and you have nothing to reply to the guy that says "I like it".

This situation is nihilism, only force can adjudicate the claims here, not reason.

Then help me understand your thought process. Surely many have criticized this way of thinking before now. What did they say?

Anyways,

>You see you are not being rational, you are just using ticks [sic] to shame the other person.

From where I'm standing it seems the position you are advocating is pretty irrational, since your rock star example reads like: "brief burst of pleasure followed by agonizing, youthful death."

My position is that every ethical choice is irrational, a preference. I like to study philosophy and play the piano. There is nothing superior in my life, someone who prefers being a clubkid is not worse. I can't criticize him.

I just chose the way that fits best my personality and physiology and I strive to support my way of living, to make it sustainable.

I don't have arguments, I just have my selfishness in keeping the situation so that I can keep living in the way I want. And I form communities on that, with people that share my interests, values and goals.

How even do you think that being a nihilist is tied to being unproductive/doing dumb shit? I'd consider myself a nihilist and I live as healthy as I can be. Not because I do it for anyone else but just because it makes me feel good. And I'm definitely not depressed.

The point of Nietzsche's philosophy is that nihilism does not have to necessarily lead to hedonism and pessimism: this logical leap is just a prejudice based on our current understanding of the world (you basically act as if nothing matters, while still remaining in your original cultural context: technically from the absence of meaning no specific prescription can be derived, from this would imply the presence of meaning).
Again, nihilism does not bear any implication and prescription.

I don't want to be that guy that just responds with '^this' but I believe you couldn't have said it better.

People like you always fail to empathize with the atheist.
Here's what I think: I have no justification for believing in any higher order, nor I can justify the belief in metaphysical concepts. If you ask me to justify their existence I literally could not do it, and believe me, I would love to be able to reveal to everyone that Good objectively exists, nad that it can be achieved in such and such way. And you really think I would not love to prove the existence of an all-loving God that waits for us in a blissful afterlife?

I simply can't justify any of these things, I have no argument for them nor I can see any legitimacy in the arguments I've heard so far. Sure, I can see the usefulness of them, but I just can't see how do they relate to any other higher order. I certainly follow my "moral compass" and I try to lead a good life, but deep down I know that there is no proof whatsoever that by doing so I'm relating to any higher concept.

So, how would you respond to such a worldview? Would you still go >ahah le hedonist nihilist?

>improving myself

1: for what?
2: as a person who has unironically participated in drug-fueled orgies with 10+ people, self-improvement and fucking strangers till your dick hurts aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, I pity anyone who goes to their death without trying it.

so what happened between nietzsche's day when he was declaring everyone a nihilist, and now? did god come back? is that why all the zombie movies?

>draining your productivity

Someone OD on the protestant kool-aid.

Tell me, how's your worldview reconcilable with wasting the best years of your life on Veeky Forums?

>Your point falls when I use a very specific definition of the term hedonism that wasn't implied in the original post and is plainly self-defeating and is actually not followed by anyone anywhere

What a terrific argument champ.

It was a hypothetical and nothing more.

>Your point falls when I use a very specific definition of the term hedonism
Fine.
> plainly self-defeating
So?
>and is actually not followed by anyone anywhere
What are drug addicts.

>What are drug addicts.

Hedonism is about maximizing pleasure. That's the definition. Drug addiction isn't maximizing pleasure, it's drug addiction.

It's really not that hard to grasp. Hedonism is fine. Hedonism without anything else is so-so, but still better than being a hypocritical no-fun-allowed internet nazi who is just barely concealing his ressentiment stemming from a life poorly lived in his angry-ass worldview.

Go smoke a joint or have a beer mate, chill the fuck out instead of whining about degeneracy on Veeky Forums.

But for a drug addict doing the drug they are addicted to is the only way left to maximize pleasure.

Drug addicts are sick people. They have almost no saying in it, it's mostly chemical reactions completely overriding their thought process. They are a bad example if you want to talk about hedonism.

>They have almost no saying in it
How does that change anything?

You are thinking within capitalist/social/etc definitions. Who said living long or being productive is in itself valuable? There are many kinds of hedonists - but what would you say to the hedonist who would choose to shoot heroin and experience, possibly, the greatest pleasure in existence? For him sensual pleasure is the highest priority, given the lack of meaning everything else suffers.
Also, your idea echoes Schopenhauer and his critique on living the human life. Apologies if you know that, but just in case you haven't, it's an interesting read: S expands on your way of thought and applies it to the driving force of life, will itself. Then Nietzsche flipped the idea on its head.

>he fell for the hedonism meme

Anyway, I was thinking of doing a thread like this. What the hell is nihilism anyway? How does a nihilist act? Where does the term originate?

making a lot of assumptions here

But what you're doing is rational. You have reasoned how to keep doing what you want to do, presumably for as long as you can.

It means that they intentions are not aimed at pleasure, in fact their own intentions are corrupted by chemical neurological processes that dismantle their judgement. See it as a mental illness, rather than a strive for pleasure.

Please tell me you thought of this misconception yourself and not through reading Sam Harris or some other hack. Morality is not a biological phenomena, and by reducing it to such, you are only making your morality more hollow. Having ethical behavior embedded into your instincts only means that certain understandings of the social environment, followed by derived actions, rewarded the human organism and allowed it to survive and prosper. It's just dull facts. Why is success of a specie "good", or "bad"? Why is acting as your genes are supposedly guiding you "good"? And before you say something about pleasure, fulfillment, or whatever - why are those "good"?
There is either something beyond the physical, applying value to neutral physical phenomena, a source of morality (god, ideology, etc.) - or a physical reality devoid of inherent meaning.

Absolute nihilism os literally Impossible. Hans cant function without values

The term originates in Turgnev's father's and sons to describe young radicals who having had an education in germany got radicalized by the enlightenment and became liberals (as in classic liberals) and positivists (against romanticism and traditionalism).

Later on Nietzsche will conflate nihilism with pessimism, decadentism. Decadentism is mostly French and was defined as the part emancipating itself from the whole. French conservatives used to name what they saw as the result of the enlightenment: selfish individualism.

Pessimism was born out of the fascination og German culture with Buddhism that was coming in the xix century from the orient. The enlightenment criticism of Christianity led German culture to be receptive to Buddhism. Circular time, personal ethics, no sense of direction, no history (without christ there is no plan of god for the world), while maintaining a sense of the detachment and stoicism towards the world.

Nietzsche will keep theorizing and will give to this tendencies a metaphysical conceptions saying that they are not just cultural fads, but are actually the effects of problems that were in philosophy (and in platonism more specifically). For Nietzsche philosophy was a sickness in the greek soul that we have inherited.

Heidegger extended this metaphysical hypothesis of nihilism as the outcome of philosophy, making it less about a sickness, but more about a historical process. Nihilism is a state that human got by trying to use language not as a way to express the world, but as a way to control it. We got on the path to nihilism once we have put our language under the control of rules and methods that were used to make instruments. And what dos that lead to: instruments have the characteristic of being at hand, readily available, but Being is not. So we have confused being for the objects that are under our eyes, and now we believe that there are only objects: that is things to control and organize and count. So the only reasons we listen to are the reasons of power and everything else is scoffed cynically. For Heidegger we have to abandon this instrumental use of reason, and go back to a more poetic approach, where we leave ourself dream and be possessed by being.

Now I'm not sure I agree with that, but I agree with Heidegger that you get to nihilism as long as you engage with reason.

My actions are rational, my desires are not. You cannot come up with an argument to convince me that I should sto playing the piano and I should start curing sick children.

A nihilist would say that they need to adhere to certain narratives to remain sane, yet this fact would not give any metaphysical inherent value to said narratives: it's just something we do.
Your error is thinking that everyone acts in a perfectly rational manner, and that every choice and action is derived logically. Trith being told, there is no reason behind the majority of our actions (or the totality, if you are a nihilist).

>What is nihilism
Basically what said. Rephrased many times throughout history, and once again during Nietzsche's times, it's the idea that the phenomenal world (your sensual experience, known as life) is devoid of inherent values. Basically, many skeptics who rejected metaphysical systems like religion and ideological faith came to the conclusion that all values were merely inventions forced on reality by those beliefs, rather than absolute metaphysical truths, waiting to be discovered.

>How does a nihilist act
It doesn't matter

>Where does the term originates
"Fathers and Sons" I think.

I am a nihilist. I am also a highschool kid. I do not see nihlism as an excuse to be lazy and not better myself. I run cross country and track, even though I may not be the best runner, and I would like to be a published author one day. I wouldnt consider myself the smartest person but I try to keep my grades up. Please don't put me out as an edgy teen that does not care about anything.

So according to your position you couldn't criticize a serial killer for killing you?

That was a through explaination, thank you.

>Now I'm not sure I agree with that
Why?

>I believe it is a human's obligation to become the best of their potential
wow pretty nasty assumption ur making there

Morally? No.
And why should I want you? Moral arguments are very ineffectual ways to stop people from hurting you.

Try talking a serial killer out of killing you by explaining him the critique of practical reason, or the golden rule. See how far you will go.

Yes he would, he desires not to die, and his desires are not rational, so he could argue against it.

Serial killers are always insane, they are not a good way to set your moral standards, in fact I would say that they are a good limit: if to discard s moral fact you have to account for the point of view of immoral insane people, chances are that there are really no good arguments against it.
And if you'll ask me how can I justify such a limit I would say: you know why. You know why the point of view of a serial killer is to be discarded when discussing morality, and you know why his conclusions means nothing from your point of view (assuming that you are a sane person). If we have to debate about why a serial killer is bad rather than good I'll just point out your dishonesty, since you would be obviously pretending to be unable to see something that is evident to any coherent person.

Would you say a moral argument not working on a psychopath is like a painting not working on a blind person?

It seems to me just vague romanticism, the idea that at one time things were better and we were more in contact with nature and more authentic.

No, I think things were always fucked up and that as conscious beings we were always in some way aware of how messed up the world is. We always had an inkling I believe, of how unjust and cruel the world can be. In little details. From how precarious our health was, how unfair our condition, how painful pain could be... and yet we were beguiled by the world to see an order and hope that all this suffering would some day be for something. A huge cognitive dissonance from which all of our culture emerged.

And that's something we have a hard time coming to terms with. Even once we managed to create enough comfort to make us forget the cruelty of our bodies, their aging and aching and getting sick... we are faced with the fact that is getting harder and harder for us to believe in our uniqueness for example... harder to believe, for some of us, that we are protagonists... we see an order in the world, and we believe in that order, and yet it seems to some that they are excluded from it, not living the lives that they are supposed to live in it, eternal spectators of the joys and beauty of other people's lives...

I don't think there is much to do about it. We are stuck in this half-assedness and we can just wait. Heidegger concluded his life thinking "only a god can save us" and I agree with that... and I hope like heidegger that it will be a god with a sense for poetry and not for efficiency.

If you exclude anyone who you disagree with you are going just to remain in a bubble. Reason is universal, if a serial killer can access it (i.e. can talk and explain through inferences and deductions his thought) then you should be able to talk to him. It's your burden to prove that he is not being rational before you exclude him. But I'm not saying that a serial killer is good, I'm just saying that you don't have a rule, a principle, to decide whether a serial killer is good. You may not find desirable to have a serial killer in your town, but you may find desirable to have it in your enemy's house.

A serial killer on the death star is good for the resistance.

The problem is that we have yet to see an example of a valid moral argument.

>Morally? No.
Of course not morally. You only care for preferences. A serial killer irrationally prefers to kill, it's what matters most in his life. How could you criticize him for killing you then, morally or not? His killing of you is to you is what playing the piano is to you.

You are pretending that I am randomly excluding EVERYONE who disagrees with me, but what about fucking serial killers? If we can't draw the line there, then there is no point to talk about morality ever again, nor there is any point in pretending that any of our action has moral significance.
Yet I would say that killing a child for my enjoyment is unethical and immoral, and if I can't prove it so be it, I'll just set it out there as an arbitrary limit: who cares if I can't justify not killing children for pleasure? I might not reach this goal with words, but I can clearly see and feel why it should not be done.
Another mistake of yours is to pretend that every moral stance has rhe same validity: what about moral stances that offer nonjustification for their behaviour, at no level? If you can't conjure not even a single justification for an action, why should I think that action has any validity whatsoever?

I agree, that's why I support laws that arrest them and if law enforcement is not around I'll try to incapacitate him or kill him in self-defense.

Good laws are not morally good. The law doesn't deal with morality, but with justice, that is its applicability is universal and doesn't give advantage to any single citizen (rawls' veil).

Even naively (for the common man) some things are immoral but not illegal (eg. cheating n your gf) some things are illegal but moral (helping a fugitive you know is innocent)

I just want to point out:

1) first we were talking about orgies as being degenerate. Not sure if you are the same user. But your argumentation was similar. If you don't get why orgies are a degenerate behavior we should give up on you.

2) it's funny that you say that preferences that can't be explained have more value, when your preference for moral realism hinges on keeping it valid even if you can't explain why it is. "who cares if I can't reach this goal with words, but I can clearly see". Why shouldn't i accept this from someone who can't explain his preference?

I disagree.

This might be a stretch, but so far the theory of evolution has held constant within biology, and seems so self-reinforcing. A strong tenet within the theory of evolution is that those that adapt the best, shall survive.

In this sense 'the obligation of becoming the best of your potential' could be translated into become the fittest you can be, from an evolutionary perspective. This will enable you to lead a good life, feel good about life, and keep producing these 'good' things into the future. Good for self, and for species. This is why 99% of people are happy and content when they achieve something complicated and difficult, and become depressed and sad when they don't.

I see a lot of people in this topic who in my view, misappropriate Nietzche's thoughts to defend a very simplistic notion of a shitty life, without putting much thought into it.

I would urge you to re-visit thus zarathustra spoke, and afterwards go read will to power. You will see that Nietzsche's views are quite compatible with evolutionary theory.

But the claim that living a shit, bitter life is no better than a full, rich life and supposedly using Nietzsche as a justification seems as the misappropriation of his thought.

Isn't your idea kind of romanticism as well?

Was there really a time when all people felt unique and important in the world? For me, from my own experience, it seems more like people live bearing life and believing almost instantly what they're told; and when they don't believe it it's because they would rather believe something they were told previously. For most of my life I've been wondering who I should be, wondering how it is people always seem so certain about everything, but it seems it all comes from a capacity to not question things, in most cases. When it comes to great purposes it's always something that is outside of them and for which they aren't much more than a number, which doesn't care for what these people actually are so long as they fulfil a set of requirements. So life goes by trying to not come to the consequence of that failure, trying to reap the off moments which only exist due to that pressure.

What I mean is that those visions of paradise are created by that hell we're supposed to be living in. And in a way, is hell not prefferible? When all you have left is attachment to existence itself, is an eternal torment not better than disappearance?

All this talk about decadence and pessimism, but aren't all "solutions" to it precisely ways to die without remorse? Isn't living dying without thinking of death also for that purpose? Is what we want to be done with life, to solve life? Isn't that ignorant, considering what we are, being that come into contact and deal with others, to want to be completely alone? And then when we are alone among people, does that horrible feeling not become deeper and more palpable?

Nowadays it seems to me that the thing that defines humans has nothing to do with language or politics, but the capacity to imagine. Reality, when I see it but don't look at it, seems slippery, and thought seem as slippery, if not more so. Life feels like a dream, and I wonder if all those more-real-than-real delusions, that dreams and fantasies, are what reality is truly like, and our capacity to take that feeling away from the senses and assign it to something else is truly what makes us unique, and the origin of our fixation with achievement, truth, authenticity, legitimacy, originality, fact and so on.

But I'm rambling now.

The real issue is that even though one cannot make a rational argument AGAINST hedonism, one can neither make a rational argument FOR hedonism.

I have to go now but I don't think we disagree, I think we are saying the same thing more or less.

Let's roll up our sleeves and bring-forth the AI god-poet

Nietzsche
>nihilist
>hedonist
What?

The more that I think about it, the more that I find a parallel between Nietzsche and the religious. It's very interesting.

1. He recognized Jesus as his ultimate opponent. He saw the figurehead of the Western world's most captivating religion for the past 2000 years as a better opponent than any other philosopher or writer. Think about that.

2. He defined nihilism as the emptying of value from the world. He called Christianity and Buddhism nihilistic, but at the same time his main book (Zarathustra) is written using a similar rhythmic format as the bible, where Zarathustra is ultimately a PROPHET.

3. He speaks much of art and tragedy. The way he writes suggests he was a deeply passionate person. His passage about a demon creeping to you at night asking you the question of eternal recurrence is almost something a religious person would dream about.

4. He justified and placed a greater will to power in ascetics.

You can't even call him an atheist. He never once says that God does not exist. He said that God is dead — very different thing. He handles the symbol of God in a way that black and white moralists of any kind, Christians or atheist skeptics, seem to be able to grasp.

See you around.

not be able to grasp*

>morality still exists as its been conditioned into our biology for survival
Gonna need a citation pal

>a literal slippery slope fallacy
also you don't know what epicureanism is

i believe it is cuz of people like u that isis exists

All I got out of this thread was that moral relativism is cancer.

It is when slaves get a hold of the concept.

>Nihilism meme
>worthless hedonist
Pls, read harder.

"What is good?" ye ask. To be brave is good. Let the little girls say: "To be good is what is pretty, and at the same time touching."

They call you heartless: but your heart is true, and I love the bashfulness of your goodwill. Ye are ashamed of your flow, and others are ashamed of their ebb.

Ye are ugly? Well then, my brethren, take the sublime about you, the mantle of the ugly!

(...)

Resistance--that is the distinction of the slave. Let your distinction be obedience. Let your commanding itself be obeying!

To the good warrior soundeth "thou shalt" pleasanter than "I will." And all that is dear unto you, ye shall first have it commanded unto you.

Let your love to life be love to your highest hope; and let your highest hope be the highest thought of life!

Your highest thought, however, ye shall have it commanded unto you by me-- and it is this: man is something that is to be surpassed.

So live your life of obedience and of war! What matter about long life! What warrior wisheth to be spared!

I spare you not, I love you from my very heart, my brethren in war!--

Thus spake Zarathustra.

He was deeply religious as a child, so much so that he got nicknamed "The Little Priest" or something like that.

(another excerpt.)

But do you want to go the way of your affliction, which is the way to yourself? Then show me your right and your strength to do so. Are you a new strength and a new right? A first movement? A self-propelled wheel? Can you compel the very stars to revolve around you?

Alas, there is so much lusting for the heights! There are so many convulsions of the ambitious. Show me that you are not one of the lustful and ambitious.

Alas, there are so many great thoughts which do no more than a bellows: they puff up and make emptier.

You call yourself free? Your dominant thought I want to hear, and not that you have escaped from a yoke. Are you one of those who had the right to escape from a yoke? There are some who threw away their last value when they threw away their servitude.

Free from what? As if that mattered to Zarathustra! But your eyes should tell me brightly: free for what?

Can you give yourself your own evil and your own good and hang your own will over yourself as a law? Can you be your own judge and avenger of your law?

Even the notorious Nietzsche at one time believed in God. Contrary to his written denials found in such last works as Ecce Homo, his early notes reveal a believer: “I have already experienced many things, joy as well as sadness, lightness of heart as well as depression, but in all these things God has certainly led me as a father might lead his helpless little child. He has already imposed much suffering on me, but in all this I recognize with reverence His majestic power which has everything turn out for the best. I have firmly resolved to devote myself to His service forever. May the dear Lord give me the power and the strength I need for this resolution. And may he protect me on my way through life. As a child I trust in His grace. He will protect us all so that no evil will befall us. But may His holy will be done! I will accept with joy whatever He sends me, whether happiness or unhappiness, whether poverty or riches. And I will boldly look death itself in the eye. Death will one day unite us all in eternal joy and blessedness. Yes, dear Lord, let the light of your countenance shine upon us forever! Amen!” But, as happens with untold numbers of university students defrauded of their Christian heritage, he soon loses his faith through indoctrination by unbelieving professors and by the perusal of atheistic works like that of Feuerbach and Schopenhauer. Henceforth, he will devote his life to the violent attack on God and the persecution of Christians. Mysterium iniquitatis. “Nietzsche too succumbed to the demonic attraction that lies in the enjoyment of power, a power that revels in the destruction of all that has long been considered unassailable and worthy of deep reverence. This is what draws him to what he calls ‘the ranks of the blasphemers.’ It is Nietzsche’s ambition to run the whole gamut of the modern soul, including its night side; to explore its every fold and cranny; to experience consciously and fully the antithesis of a religious soul; to become acquainted with the devil and know God from the devil’s perspective. Nietzsche revolts against God and then blackness engulfs him: “I stand still, suddenly I am tired. The road ahead seems to drop steeply; in a flash the abyss is all about me. I am loathe to look down. Behind me tower the mountains. Trembling, I grope for a hold. What? Has everything turned to stone and precipice? This shrub – it breaks to pieces in my hand, and sallow leaves and scraggy roots trickle downwards. I shiver and close my eyes – where am I? I peer into a purple night; it looks at me and beckons.”

Did Nietzsche just hate the Christians? No, he included the Jews and all that he thought of as being mediocre herd animals influenced by belief in an Almighty God. In fact, a main reason why he hated Christianity was because of its Jewish roots, the Jews being for him a perpetually enslaved and mediocre race.

Nietzsche’s pathological hatred for Christianity is well-known. Here are two passages, from many, of his bigoted invectives against the Christians and their God: “The Christian conception of God – God as god of the sick, God as spider, God as a spirit – is one of the most corrupt conceptions of the divine ever attained on earth. It may even represent the low-water mark in the descending development of divine types. God degenerated into the contradiction of life, instead of being its transfiguration and eternal Yes! God as the declaration of war against life, against nature, against the will to live! God – the formula for every slander against ‘this world,’ for every lie about the ‘beyond.’ God – the deification of nothingness, the will to nothingness pronounced holy!” “…the domestic animal, the herd animal, the sick animal – the Christian.”

What was the root cause of Nietzsche’s revolt against God? A devilish pride and a black envy of Christ. Siegmund notes that “as Nietzsche’s life unwinds it becomes more and more evident that the ultimate reason for his rejection of faith lies in his attitude of inordinate pride, the hubris of Greek tragedy. The attitude proper to human reason is hat of humble receptivity to truth, which must be pursued long and ardently before it reveals itself. The subject in search of truth must subordinate himself to the data of truth. This basic and normal order of procedure is reversed and destroyed when the subject attempts to subordinate truth to his human ego, which claims for itself the right to posit truths. By so doing the arrogant ego becomes the source of all being and value. It does not pride itself on its achievements and values as compared with those of others for it no longer seriously compares itself with others; it considers itself on an entirely different plane. Everything connected with such an ego is held to be superior to everything that has no part in it. Stepping out of the actual order of the world, the arrogant ego exalts itself, investing itself with the radiance of the absolute. Everything that does not belong to it must be kept at an absolute distance, even God. Inevitably, true arrogance refuses to recognize the supremacy of God.”

Ida Overbeck, an intimate of Nietzsche’s, reveals in her memoirs that “the normal person, no matter how gifted, is inclined to seek the company of others. Nietzsche hated normal people because his inability to be normal himself condemned him to a uniqueness that was absolute. Conscious of the terrible strain this cost him, he exalted himself above everyone normal…What would Nietzsche have done had he ever met his equal? Probably killed him or himself, he could not have borne it!” Miceli believes that Nietzsche suffered from a God-complex, from an obsession to be humanity’s Saviour, and burned with envy at Jesus’ having pre-empted him two thousand years back. He quotes with approval André Gide’s thesis that Nietzsche fumed with jealously against Christ: “In the presence of the Gospel, Nietzsche’s immediate and profound reaction was – it must be admitted – jealously. It does not seem to me that Nietzsche’s work can be really understood without allowing for that feeling. Nietzsche was jealous of Christ, jealous to the point of madness. In writing his Zarathustra, Nietzsche was continually tormented with the desire to contradict the Gospel. Often he adopted the actual form of the Beatitudes in order to reverse them. He wrote Antichrist and in his last work, Ecce Homo, set himself up as the victorious rival of Him whose teaching he proposed to supplant.” Miceli goes on to point out that “when he finally went mad, Nietzsche’s fascination with Jesus attained the illusion of identity. He signed his last letters to Gast and Brandes, ‘The Crucified One.’”

Nietzsche’s atheistic philosophy of the will to power and the superman has drawn wide sectors of society into the fold of self-worship. An overwhelming majority of the messages received by today’s betrayed generation through the powerful and influential means of social communication – the television, the movies, the glossy magazines – are nihilistic cultural lures that glorify the right to annihilate the most defenseless (the unborn in abortion and the elderly in euthanasia), the sensual life (pornography, prostitution), and the exaltation of the ego (I’ve gotta be me! and FAME, I wanna live forever, I wanna learn how to fly, high! Remember my name!), messages that glorify materialism, selfishness, hedonism, and sheer paganism. A great part of the world today, above all in the developed countries of the West, is steeped in a post-Christian, hi-tech neo-paganism that would have made Nietzsche smile (and pagan Rome blush).

What matters? Who is, or what is god? What constitutes good and evil?
You answer these questions and come back and you can look down on nihilists. Because until you can answer those questions and climb that infinite staircase you are nothing but a nihilist in denial. AKA a retarded nihilist.

> the Jews being for him a perpetually enslaved and mediocre race

The Jews, however, are beyond all doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race at present living in Europe, they know how to succeed even under the worst conditions (in fact better than under favourable ones), by means of virtues of some sort, which one would like nowadays to label as vices--owing above all to a resolute faith which does not need to be ashamed before "modern ideas", they alter only, WHEN they do alter, in the same way that the Russian Empire makes its conquest--as an empire that has plenty of time and is not of yesterday--namely, according to the principle, "as slowly as possible"!

– Beyond Good and Evil

Really, do anybody here actually read, or it's just low-tier memes?

There really is no better Antichrist in history. Nietzsche is the man.

he's just an edgy pathetic piece of shit

Making the moral switch that he did so genuinely is the opposite of pathetic.

I am OP and asked a question between a connection of Nihilism and Hedonism a couple days ago. I wanted to know if there was one but nobody answered me. So, I did what any reasonable person would do and posted retarded bait and got the answers I was looking for. Thanks guys

I must be honest, I am not very smart. I have trouble making sense of it all. How does one comprehend such writings?

Nice baseless claims you have there

Me too. What I could understand was the overtones of bravery and optimism of life, which goes against OP's comparison of nihilism with hedonism. What OP needs to understand is that the traditional nihilism of the 19th century was a motivator towards achieving more in life, while current high school girl nihilism is an excuse for degeneracy and a life of addiction to pleasure, and a way for women to turn into sluts as there are no stakes and nobody can judge them. This is why Nietzsche has had a recent surge in popularity amongst teenagers, who fail to understand his message, and take his quotes at face value.

If you're actually OP, then the conclusions of your little experiment are a bit saddening because you really did get some really good answers.

what a fag, you got your answers in the first two posts. i bet you never fucked a gorgeous woman.

"values" aren't necessarily logical
a human being can't function without values. he would have to be braindead in order for that to even be possible

I am a MGTOW and not bound to such primitive urges unlike yourself. I've had women more beautiful and lustful than in your wildest dreams throw themselves onto me and I swatted them away like the flies they were. I've had the grandest opportunities offered to me but I rejected them because I am a self made man. I've had the most comfortable living spaces offered to me in the most pristine universities and I declined because they will not use my superior intelligence and ability to fuel their agendas all while shaping my mind so I wouldn't continue to rise above them. Sorry we all can't be as simple minded as you. Sometimes I wish I were like you if I am being honest. To be casual and not have to hold up such standards. To just work in 9 to 5 with a goal of having or maintaining a family. But fate has decided not to give me such a mundane lifestyle and so I will continue to be shepherd in my own way as the mundane follow me as they try to achieve my excellence.

>I am MGTOW
I stopped there

That values aren't necessary logical is nihilism.

Before nihilism, philosophers with Plato thought that what is of value could be deduced from the reality of the world. For example with Augustine the good is to act in accordance to measure, order and nature.

That is the good action is the action that follows the way the world is.

But in nihilism this connection between is and ought is broken. Not only in knowledge (as in hume) but in fact. That is you say: there is no reason to values.

A nihilist can just say I just want what I want at any moment, and this is it.

If admitting you are ignorant doesn't get you answers then just post something ignorant and people will correct you.

Are you fucking schizophrenic or what? Where did you see one single person on Veeky Forums writing such things?
Also, nihilism and hedonism are contradictory philosophies and you're spouting bullshit.