Nihilism - the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless

Existentialsits are nihilists. So are absudrists and so are christian atheists. Nihilism is just a statement about reality, no-one is "just" a nihilist any more than anyone is "just" a theist, these are starting points not end states.

>Suffering is meaningful. It hurts

Moral nihilists are not necessarily epistemological nihilists. They might agree that pain or suffering has 'meaning' insofar as it corresponds to and describes some state of reality and that it can be known (e.g. "I am experiencing pain right now.") but deny any moral significance or meaning. (e.g. "it is bad to experience pain" or "I ought to avoid experiencing pain.")

Yeah, but you can't deny that suffering has any meaning when you are in fact suffering.

That's the whole point. You can sit here and be glib about it philosophically, but you're going to avoid any situation that can cause you undue harm whatever you say, and that's a form of meaning if there is any in life.

>Yeah, but you can't deny that suffering has any meaning when you are in fact suffering.

I just explained exactly how you can do just that. An "ought" doesn't follow from an 'is'.

whats the difference between dem maymays

>Yeah, but you can't deny that suffering has any meaning when you are in fact suffering.

You can't deny that it feels like suffering, nor that it feels like it has meaning, but cosmically speaking it has no meaning and neurologically speaking it's an illusion anyway.

>a form of meaning

Nihilism does not require teh rejection of meaning, it merely acknowledges that any meaning we find there is a product of our limited perspective and propensity to see patterns, ie, that it artificial or man-made.

The is/ought gap literally isn't relevant at all to this discussion.

OP presented them poorly, Absurdism is a response to nihilism not a separate idea.

>but cosmically speaking

Who cares about cosmically speaking?

People who aren't nihilists.

It is if we're talking about moral nihilism, and since the thread opened by contrasting nihilism to absurdism (as opposed to let's say rationalism or idealism) then it's safe to assume we are.

>People who aren't nihilists.

You literally said "suffering has no meaning and neurologically speaking it's an illusion".

So, what you're essentially saying is that the subjective isn't real is that what you're saying? Everyone is just a philosophical zombie?

What's the difference between the statement "I avoid suffering" and "I ought to avoid suffering"?

The latter is implied by the former. There is no reason to avoid suffering if suffering is meaningless.

You're not very good at reading, are you? I was quite clear that being a nihilist does not mean one must reject the notion of meaning, merely that one accepts that the meaning they find in life is in some greater sense illusory.

>I was quite clear that being a nihilist does not mean one must reject the notion of meaning, merely that one accepts that the meaning they find in life is in some greater sense illusory.

Yeah but that's the point you fucking retard.

Suffering and pain aren't "illusory", and they are meaningful, because if they weren't, you wouldn't avoid those things by reflex.

>Who is in the right here

Neither man..

Morality, or virtue, better yet- righteousness, has a discernible contrast to it's counter. And there's too much organization in the universe for it to be defined as chaotic. These are both grossly inaccurate.

These are regressive perspectives, evil in nature as both are cowards in the face of injustice. Both of these are open to the potential harm upon the innocent. The concepts themselves create the chaos and the rejection of the moral principles that they claim. Both are self manifesting evils and stumbling blocks to the truth.

There's no reason to cut off the love that God/Jesus Christ has for you man.Not to sound all sappy, but seriously, appreciate others, exercise charity, be thankful for what you do got, some got even less. It's God's will for everyone who will listen to experience this. You're loved, no reason to abandon your brother and throw him under the buss by saying he's meaningless or unworthy of moral, or virtuous, or righteous responses. That's your brother man. You can love him cause you're already loved.

go away jeebus

>because if they weren't, you wouldn't avoid those things by reflex.

Do plants suffer? What about bugs? Animals certainly seem to suffer, but bacteria fairly clearly don't. What does it mean? That avoiding suffering is an evolutionary adaptation? That the suffering of a dog is as meaningful, to the dog, as the suffering of a man does to him?

>Suffering and pain aren't "illusory", and they are meaningful,

To ME, my suffering is meaningful. To my dog, HIS suffering is meaningful. But to "history", neither of our sufferings matters in the slightest.

It only follows in the physical sense (rocks fall down when pushed off a cliff, rocks 'ought to' fall down when pushed off a cliff), but there is no normative quality to it, there is no 'imperative' implied.

>To ME, my suffering is meaningful.

Exactly. Which should be the only thing that matters.

Should be? It's just a fact about the universe. What you make of it is it up to you, most nihilists lead perfectly happy lives full of meaning, and without wasting time wondering what they /ought/ to value.

>full of meaning
Which means they aren't nihilists.

So Sisyphus could theoretically make it up the hill right? If he's been pushing that rock for so long he must have mad gains and be slowly getting farther and farther up the hill.