What philosophy is closest to "Nothing fucking matters at al "

Nihilism is best understood as a point of discovery to build off of. As an actual life philosophy it all but demands suicide. Anyone who claims to be a nihilist and isn't actively seeking death has offered some refutation of nihilism, something they cling to whether value, authenticity, spite, etc.

"Life has no meaning, but strive to give it your own meaning and work toward that goal"
What philosophy is this closest to?

existentialism
how that existentialist dragon told to grendel:
>My advice is, don't ask! Do as I do! Seek out gold--but not my gold--and guard it!

That ain't philosophy at all.

>As an actual life philosophy it all but demands suicide
No it doesn't. It doesn't say anything about whether you should kill yourself.
>Anyone who claims to be a nihilist and isn't actively seeking death has offered some refutation of nihilism
We usually don't try to kill ourselves because we evolved that way. Nihilism doesn't say whether life is worth living or not, so it's usually just easier to go with the flow.

But killing yourself is just as pointless as living.

>nihilism = go with the flow
Uhmmm

How do I escape these two babbie options?

Get laid

That's the point of existentialism though, its why Sartre invented it

>Uhmmm
Not an argument. Also a misrepresentation of what I said, which was simply that it's almost always easier to simply stay alive than to kill yourself. Nihilism doesn't change that.
Turn to religion.

K. Thanks for the input

>it's almost always easier to simply stay alive than to kill yourself

Its really easy to kill yourself though, just tie your belt around a support beam like DFW did

>Turn to religion.
That's even worse. At least (atheist) existentialists create meaning of their own.

>At least (atheist) existentialists create meaning of their own.

They don't though, that's inherently impossible
They just posture around pointlessly and die

You're the worst kind of person.

optimistic nihilism

why is permanence the only thing that's worth striving for?

I'd say the guy who invented (you)r skydaddy was pretty successful at creating meaning of his own.

Why is anything worth striving for you imbecile

My dude you literally just described someones view as meaningless while claiming they invented their own meaning.
If the world lacks objective significance then anything an individual can constitute is just pointless delusion

>you literally just described someones view as meaningless
I didn't say existentialism was meaningless, I just said it was babby self-help tier philosophy.

>I didn't say existentialism was meaningless

No but I am

Why?
I said religion, not theism.
>If the world lacks objective significance then anything an individual can constitute is just pointless delusion
Why?

Because the individual is part of the world

>I said religion, not theism.
Explain

If the world lacks foundations you're not going to be able to build a house

killing yourself implies value in nonexistence/death over life
nihilism does not claim this
Life is meaningless, but so is death and dying.

The correct answer therefore is to sit still until you starve to death like the ancient Jains did

that implies a higher value in inaction over action

>How do I escape these two babbie options?
Aren't Existentialism and Nihilism the only two options that aren't preordained? I've thought these were the only philosophies where one creates their own meaning.

Elaborate.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religion
If you can't find a hammer, use a screwdriver.

I can be an obfuscating pseud too.

Creating your own meaning is a meme anyways since the individual doesn't exist in a vacuum. You cannot will what you will.

if you actually thought that, you wouldn't ask the question

The world is objectively insignificant.
You as individual are part of the world.
Thus any meaning you create is objectively insignificant.

If striving to be the best version of oneself is their meaning, why can't it be willed if they work toward it?

Because your idea of what constitutes "the best version of yourself" isn't freely determined by yourself. Neither is the want to be that best version.

Absurdism you fucking faggot

Create your own meaning or adopt someone else's meaning. What's the difference?
Sure, but why does meaning have to be objective?

As in.
Making "choices", as opposed to not making a choice, is valid; everything is equal in value/meaning (as in zero).
Not making any choices when all choices are equal, is as wrong (right) as making any choice, or two.

For example this guy uses the word "insignificant", but a thing can only be insignificant in comparison to something else. He gives a negative value to something. Negative value is as wrong as positive value. Everything is zero.

>isn't freely determined by yourself
How so? If the person finds they want to be better in reading (for example), how isn't that a decision they have willed?

Why does he want to be better at reading? Because reading makes him look smart? That's culturally conditioned. Because he enjoys it? Then why does he enjoy it?

Say they read because they enjoy learning, for personal pleasure, and they enjoy reading about other cultures. No external factors except for wanting to enjoy it and learn more.

Where does that enjoyment come from? Surely a person from a well educated family background enjoys reading more than others. A person from a culture that values learnedness will enjoy reading more than someone else. As I said, individuals don't exits in a vacuum.

Stoicism

>Making "choices", as opposed to not making a choice, is valid; everything is equal in value/meaning (as in zero).

It might be valid but where is the justification? The motivation?

Sure you're making a blanket statement. People from educated families may also dislike reading more than others. Likewise, one who enjoys learning may reside in a culture that disproves of learnedness.
Anomalies exist, not every individual is the same.

Absolutely, that was obviously an oversimplification, but you get the idea.

So you believe that most can't freely determine what they will, but a few individuals can?

Nobody can, I'm just saying the sources of what they want are complicated.

Because everyone takes influence from their surroundings, thus the decision they make is based upon the environment they live in?

>Sartre invented existentialism

False. On multiple fronts.
Equity implies any amount of value, nothing can be equally pointless as something else unless both have some intrinsic value, the language you use presume a value in both. Living while knowing that doing so is pointless is either mental deficiency, willingly blinding oneself to what is known, or otherwise avoiding the truth.

You state living is pointless, which is indeed in line with nihilism. You state dying is pointless, again in line with nihilism. But given that any objective equity is impossible, as this presupposes some value outside of persons, then they must have a relativistic comparison. In this sense, efficiency gains value, not objectively, but simply out of pointless convenience. Nothing matters, but why occupy yourself and your time with even more things that don't matter. People go to jobs they hate to do work that ultimately doesn't matter, but they choose to get to work as quickly as possible, they choose to structure their morning in a way that makes it most efficient for them to carryout this mindless routine, simply because even in nihilism convenience helps to grease the wheels.

Open acceptance of the lack of meaning in life means that the only natural progression is to end life as quickly as possible, whether by engaging in increasingly risky behavior and lifestyles in a hedonistic burnout or direct action (suicide). The latter implies value in the experiences themselves, therefore it is preferable to take the more efficient (least value assumed) route which is suicide.

Or you can take nihilism as a challenge as many philosophers (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Camus, etc) have done. An open ended question without answer which demands constant introspection and construction of one's own torch to warm oneself in the cold, lonely dark of nihilism.

tl;dr there's three responses to nihilism: suicide, existentialism, pseud high school tier
yolo nihilism

Going with the flow is pointless, there's no value in it. Unless you're arguing for efficiency in which case it's easier to just kill yourself. Nothing matters so why continue occupying your time with pointless crap? Just die. Any continuing to live is an affirmation of something to live for.

Mispelt Albert Chadmus

>Nothing matters so why continue occupying your time with pointless crap?
Because I want to? Do you really need some overarching meaning to even handle being alive? lmao that's weak

>Because I want to?

Why?

why are you guys spoonfeeding this motherfucker so hard? remember "lurk more newfag"? What the fuck happened to that?

I don't think anyone's helping OP anymore, it's mostly arguments between people with differing beliefs now.

Because I don't want to do the opposite.

>nihilism
>go with the flow
seems like lazy thinking to me

why want? wanting is pointless

"nihilism" generally is for lazy pseuds who don't want to actually critical think. Actual Nihilists are v rare.

Why be hungry? God you're retarded.
Or they're not trying to avoid reality through circumlocutory mental masturbation and self delusion, simply accepting things for what they are, and you deem it lazy as a way to protect your world view.

it's still a question that can be answered by spending an hour on here or by being over 18

What's wrong with the flow? Should a nihilist kill himself to prove a point?

no it really is lazy most nihilists don’t know logic and haven’t studied epistemology or ontology, don’t have a deep background in phil or linguistics, aren’t well read in science and aren’t good at math. most life denying philosophy is for peasants and pseuds who can’t bear the burden of Being. Nihilism threads are full of suicidal, stupid and degenerate people looking for excuses to be evil

Say you're right. How is nihilism wrong exactly?

Brutha you don't choose to be hungry but you choose to keep living. That's an active choice you make every day for the rest of your life which implies a strong value to living over dying, a choice which needs to be made once.

You can't even keep up with your own argument. I choose to eat because I'm hungry, but I don't choose to be hungry. Same with life. What's so hard to understand?

Why bother eating? You'll just get hungry again. It doesn't matter. You're eating to stave off dying from hunger, so you're affirming some reason to live.

>you're affirming some reason to live
Nothing gets past you, does it?

Nihilists can’t argue for what they believe without reducing themselves to silence along the way to their desired conclusions. They need you to still be capable of conveying meaning through language to understand the phrase “there is no meaning” which isn’t possible and so you’re essentially camping out inside your own basic principles where you won’t ever escape the annihilating logical machinery that demands you stop talking about your argument because of its necessary steps and conclusions. In the same sense that all arguments about God ask, “what is God?” when you finally make the proper theistic ontological arguments for god’s existence you’re stripped of language and cannot describe be being in question or its nature. Thus you have to posture and camp out inside of arguments and incomplete principles hoping no one could possibly put together that you were playing a language game, which has limits and now the game is over and you don’t want it to be. Basically I don’t have to refute Theists or Nihilists, they cannot logically prove anything they believe at all by definition of their own beliefs which are predicated on “nothing matters, there is no truth” which is unprovable by its own axioms and “there is a God and it is thus” which can’t be finished as a statement ever. The advice to take here is that if you’re going to do philosophy don’t have end goals for your beliefs built in as a priori assumptions or you usually end up having to lie or misrepresent what you think. In the instance of Nihilism, most nihilists don’t hold logical beliefs that guarantee nihilism’s truth, they just have strong feelings that its the case. But there’s no logical argument they could produce that’d seal them off from refutation, they can’t complete their body of thought by the very rules of language they’re abusing to argue about a language artifact, meaning. Zero truth value+Implausible premises=Not an argument

Here you'd make a distinction between different types of nihilism. Knowledge may exist, but not morality or objective meaning.

You've still yet to counter that point so I'll keep bringing you back there.

>asking "what is God"
>followed by lots and lots of words and talk of a language game
>not asking who is God
that is a lot of words for a fellow who doesn't know who God is (hint its you but you're still dreaming you're a person, don't worry it will be over soon, then the real Game will begin)

>but not morality or objective meaning.

Do you know this for a fact?

jfc i'm the other guy arguing against nihilism in this thread, and even I don't want to read that.

Counter what? I haven't killed myself, therefore life has objective meaning? Explain the connection there first.

I don't. Do you?

That to live requires a necessary suspension of the logic of nihilism.
There is no living nihilist

I do, but I like to watch people guessing

Why rush towards an end that's inevitable? Killing yourself is just as pointless as not doing so.

Why do anything? That's the damn point.
Best to like the Jain's just let yourself starve to death

No killing yourself cuts out the middleman of living pointlessly. You live thousands of days pointlessly but you only need to die pointlessly once.

Most of them acknowledge this, the response to the fact is the interesting part.

>Most of them acknowledge this

Nowhere near true you illiterate idiot

Yeah this is more of a 17th-18th Century and beyond phenomenon.

1700s-1800s* not century.

We've already covered this.
You don't need meaning or morality to enjoy doing things.

But why enjoy things? No point in doing that