In a nihilistic world, why shouldn't you become a hedonist?

reddit post

lmao. Did Cato have an ideology? No, he advocated for the interests of his class.

Serving your ideology is a modernist idea and I reject that framing of philosophy and politics.

so deep..

what this guy says
You can have all the pleasures you want but live an existence void of true happiness at the same time.

Refute it soyim

you dont have to. if a nihilistic world, just double down in your beliefs.

everyone looks through an ideological lens throughout their life. Just because you don't slap an ideology on yourself like a stamp doesn't mean you don't have one faggot

#
>Why should I act sincerely or with compassion towards parasites?

Another example of treating real individual human beings like cells or components in some glorious super organism. This is the central lie of corporatism and underlies everything fascists believe, from treating nation states like concrete objects to justifying the murder of people they dislike as a special case.

All people are parasites in the sense that we're heterotrophs. You yourself presumably benefit from third world labor and have a disproportionately negative effect on the global environment, and if automation advances far enough you may find may find yourself and many others becoming relatively useless in a world where you helped encourage an attitude of human disposability.

Marxism follows the same logic as you, and simply substitutes ethnic minorities for the bourgeoisie. But the practical result is the same: frothing-at-the-mouth ideologues incite revolutions and wars with no lasting benefit to humanity - and a total inability for either fascism or communism to produce a stable society that's lasted over 100 years, compared to the supposed "failures" of liberalism or non-absolutist monarchy which have had significantly higher longevity and living standards.

You admit to being a nihilist. If life is meaningless, people have no utility, which would mean a class of "parasites" can't really exist in the first place.

That's probably true except I can look through multiple. I can and have passed ideological Turing tests - something most people cannot do. They serve their that ideology's position on an issue instead of evaluating what the other person is saying.

Nihilism doesn't mean nothing matters, it means there's no authority from which you can derive and objective morality.

And a parasite by my definition would be the case where someone or some class of people ceasing to exist would benefit me.

>Nihilism doesn't mean nothing matters, it means there's no authority from which you can derive and objective morality.

Actually, no. You're simply less intelligent than me and just demonstrated that you have no real knowledge of nihilism or philosophy. Even reading the Wikipedia article would make you more informed than this.
Nothing matters = existential nihilism
No objective morality = moral nihilism
Obviously, both are subsets of nihilism, just like far-right ideologues are a subset of demi-mongoloid peons with no sense of intellectual rigour beyond skimming jpegs on a Bhutanese bulletin board system in order to repeatedly retract the political frenulum of their confirmation bias.

>And a parasite by my definition would be the case where someone or some class of people ceasing to exist would benefit me.

But you are not any kind of special case or main character among everyone on earth. The far-right laundry list of degenerates and untermenscen always expands in line with the general divide and conquer nature of their ideology. It's a historically verifiable slippery slope to stand on, and since I doubt you run your country, you'll have no say whether you're written on Adolf Santa's naughty or nice list once the wheel of democracy and human rights is turned over to unaccountable oligarchs or an autocrat. That's what generally happens to revolutionaries of any kind in the long run.

exactly. Every single time I've given into blind hedonism, I've eventually found out that I'm worse off than before and that I have nothing to show for those times but an empty bank account and detoriating health.

You can't fill that void caused by nihilism by blindly diving into the pleasures of hedonism. A much better way to do this is to learn how to control yourself and how to accept the pain of life while keeping the flame of happiness alive inside of you. Reading Marcus Aurelius has really helped me with this

Because when you are unable to control your senses, others will control it for you.

Did I claim to be an existential nihilist or a moral nihilist. Look up retard lmao.

>But you are not any kind of special case or main character among everyone on earth. The far-right laundry list of degenerates and untermenscen always expands in line with the general divide and conquer nature of their ideology. It's a historically verifiable slippery slope to stand on, and since I doubt you run your country, you'll have no say whether you're written on Adolf Santa's naughty or nice list once the wheel of democracy and human rights is turned over to unaccountable oligarchs or an autocrat. That's what generally happens to revolutionaries of any kind in the long run.
I don't need to be a certain person in order advocate what I do, nor do I have to derive anything from a principle; its simply a preference and what I consider to be in my interest.

>Did I claim to be an existential nihilist or a moral nihilist. Look up retard lmao.

You claimed a lack of meaning wasn't nihilism. You're wrong.

>I don't need to be a certain person in order advocate what I do, nor do I have to derive anything from a principle; its simply a preference and what I consider to be in my interest.

Of course, you can advocate things against your own interest if you're short sighted. Hell, against everyone's interests. Visionaries and utopianists are always the first people to give up their lives and their freedom.

I purposefully didn't understand what I just wrote; you're a slave to your ideology.

You purposefully*

You're pretty well spoken user

Why be a hedonist if you're in a nihilistic world?

Does pursuit of happiness somehow have value in nihilistic world? How would that value even work?

So you can kill all the nihilists to restore order.

Unless, of course there is no greater joy for you than murdering people that adhere to inferior ideologies.

Most people do, and then become miserable when pleasure no longer provides any pleasure. That's when the abyss enters into your life. Not with constant pain, but when pleasure ceases being pleasurable.

There would be no greater joy than if all of the godless nihilists disappeared.

...

Nigga if you cared about your interests you would never support dictators that will strip you of half your rights and inopposedly stromp on the other half

You will likely not have to power or influence such as Cicero did meaning your ''lmao I don't take sides'' idea will likely not have any effect on anything. You are willfully ignoring the fact that almost all humans need to work together to accomplish anything mildly impressive. What is the point of having a political view and not making any meaningful attempt to give very it impact upon your life? The only way to realistically accomplish this is to work with others, who will most certainly NOT share your views completely. And to work with others you will have to associate yourself with an idealology in one way or another. Compromise is key user.

This IS a nihilistic world!

My world is centered around my friends and family which would most likely be caused much grief if I went and died. Thus my world is not nihilist, therefore there is not much to be gained from hedonism that would not have great drawbacks. although i would like to get rid of my virginity. I will go to amsterdam soon, maybe Ill pay for a hooker.

In a nihilistic world, what motivates you to wake up every morning? Is pleasure really that strong of a motivator?

Edgy kids calling themselves "nihilists" are deluding themselves. Real nihilists are tortured, miserable souls. If you love your family, your friends, music, sports, anything you find meaning in, then I'm afraid to tell you that you are not a nihilist. Just an edgelord.

Without meaning, without purpose, life is simply not worth living. There lies your contradiction. A true nihilist cannot be a hedonist, and a true hedonist - one who believes life's only purpose is the enjoyment of life itself - cannot axomatically be called a nihilist, for he has found meaning.

Well there wouldn't really be a meaning to that would there?

Just curious, what do you believe to be the best way of moving forward in the future?

> moral nihilist
> far - right
> hierarchy is good

I think it's not so much about cultivating some utopian vision, but rather avoiding certain mistakes. The current global "anarchy of nation states" is not a sustainable option and leaves too much wiggle room for WMDs or ecological destruction to fuck humanity eventually - exacerbated as we grow closer to overpopulation in a bid to outdo each other in a red Queen's race. Some problems like the overuse of antibiotics and phosphorous depletion are almost never discussed in the public eye. I don't want a one-world government, but something like a stronger UN in a federated-but-multipolar world would do wonders for tackling issues like these, because currently we need near-unanimous agreement among world leaders to make a real change, whereas majoritarian resolutions on a global level would be much easier to enforce.

I've outlined why I don't like fascism. I think anarchism makes organization on the scale we need virtually impossible. Communism sounds nice to some people, yet fails not only in practice, but also in a deeper examination of its theory; marxism leaves little consideration for hard earned human rights necessary for rule of law and a high standard of living. It may initially improve people's lives in poor farming countries that are trying to industrialize, but as time goes on, the innovation promoted by capitalism creates wealth which outstrips any gains a developing country makes my forcefully reducing inequality, leaving even the poor in capitalist countries better off than virtually anywhere with a command economy. Mixed economies are the rule, by and large. They need reform rather than revolution, and while "basic income" is not really viable I definitely think we need an expansion of the welfare state as the transition to greater automation sows benefits which are long to bear fruit, leaving the masses dangerously disenfranchised and searching for fringe solutions in the process.

no real reason, you fucking retard

(cont'd)

It is no surprise that support for the current far-right plague comes in a large part from unemployed or underemployed whites. But if we can better their economic conditions people will be less willing to vote for comedic demagogues out of a jaded spite for the way things are. Hopefully then we can get back to boring old "business as usual" career politicians, which is honestly how I think somebody carrying the weight of a nation on his shoulders should act. It's not a trivial responsibility. Some reforms that I think would be universally beneficial without right or left political leanings are: banking reform, more transparent and regulated lobbying, shrinking the current trend towards "surveillance states", lower pay for politicians, preferential voting, greater accountability for influential people who break the law, slashing invisible and regressive taxes like the sales tax, prison reform based purely on reducing recidivism rather than moralistic platitudes about being "tough on crime", lowering the amount of time required for copyrighted works to enter public domain, increased R&D spending, and making relevant degrees mandatory for heading specific executive departments in a government cabinet.

Also, this may be controversial on Veeky Forums - but I think that overtly and publicly arguing for the moral propriety of ethnic genocide or Marxist revolutions should not always come under free speech, but in some cases can be considered an incitement to violence. This needs to be actually enforced unless we want populist retards to take over society.

That's nice and all, but people in power like to stay in power, and get more of it.

I think you're being too naive. Reform is unlikely in any way since TPTB are entrenched in the western world.

Do you have any ideas on how to put forward and enforce those reforms? What about dealing with people who disagree on certain issues like government officials being against lower pay (obviously)? How else can you punish someone if they don't feel the effects of their poor mismanagement other than revolt?

P.S: I'm not advocating revolt if there is any other possible way.

Because pleasure can easily become unpleasant and destructive.

You get sick of chasing feelings fast, user.

Because hedonism is a construct of society and society must be destroyed.

Because in a nihilistic world you have no reason not to kill yourself, Nietzsche himself was a pussy and had to justify his existence.

>Marxism follows the same logic as you, and simply substitutes ethnic minorities for the bourgeoisie.
This is a lazy argument. The critique of the position that bourgeoisie enjoy is not really moralistic or that there is something inherent to a "race" of bourgeois individuals who by their nature exploit workers, but that accumulation of capital in the hands of the few, to the benefit of the few, naturally creates a system of exploitative labor that is not only unpleasant for the majority but unsustainable in and of itself. A marxist who's main interest is eradicating bourgeois individuals, in the way a nazi would be interested in eradicating jewish ones, is a very crude marxist. The idea is to dismantle the system that allows people to fill the role of bourgeoisie. The reason moral condemnation is an auxiliary concern at best is that people respond to their material conditions and it's only natural for a bourgeois person to defend the position they enjoy, where they do no work and reap the lion's share of profit.

>People in power like to stay in power, and get more of it.

I'm not trying to disprove the ironclad trend towards oligarchy in history. I just wish that it was better organized to tackle long-term and global existential threats.

>Reform is unlikely in any way since TPTB are entrenched in the western world.

In a sense, power is always entrenched. I don't think that everything I wan't can be accomplished, but democratic reform has happened in the past and can happen again. Even radical change that I disapprove of - like the election of Trump - is ripe to flourish during times of lingering crisis. The worse things get, the more power is usually consolidated to act in such a way. In that sense, the urgency of problems can sometimes be its own solution. But it can be in either direction, which is why I don't like the historical determinism of Marxists and some anarchists, or the romanticist idealism of far-right reactionaries.

>What about dealing with people who disagree on certain issues like government officials being against lower pay (obviously)? How else can you punish someone if they don't feel the effects of their poor mismanagement other than revolt?

Every statesman - even nondemocratic ones - have to appeal to the people in some way, not just for votes but also to secure their own existence. The threat of revolt can be just as poweful as the actual thing. Bismarck, for example, pretty much created the modern welfare state in order to combat the threat of communism. It was a genius move. I know talking about such things does not cause change to happen by itself, but any practical action is going to require discussions like this beforehand. Not just to spread ideas, but because widely distributed discussion is more likely to pick out flaws in a plan that individual biases would ignore. That's the main disadvantage of authoritarianism as far as I see it; a good leader depends on his advisors, ruling with an iron fist discourages them from honesty.

Strictly speaking, Marx was amoral about it. But that statement does not describe the actual sentiment that most Marxists hold towards the upper classes today or even in the 1800s and early 20th century.

I will admit that horseshoe theory has a lot of flaws, but the basic rhetorical sentiment about achieving positive change by overthrowing a parasitic class is the same even if it's described in different ways and targets different people.

This seems like a defusing way to think about structural injustice in a society though. You could say that nazis and communists equally target a group they consider parasites but that doesn't necessarily invalidate either analysis. At best it's just pointing out a superficial resemblance. That two groups who wish to overthrow the status quo have identified what they believe to be a cause of injustice.
Again, I think throwing out either analysis based on this similarity is lazy. Nazis propose that Jewish people and other non-aryans are detrimental through a vague and unsubstantiated quality of their being. It's part Darwinian and part spiritual but always lacking in nuance and very heavy on feeling. The marxist take on bourgeoisie has real analysis behind the structure of wage labor, the effect it has on workers, and a solution that workers may be liberated. The two positions are different, despite both prescribing revolution.
Unless you're willing to make the argument that revolution is always immoral but really that just seems like an appeal to the status-quo. A sort of Fukuyama-esque idea of the end of history.

>hedonism means I'll enjoy life more

This is essentially the correct answer to OP. Hedonism entails a value system which contradicts nihilism in just same way as anything else you name.

>nihilistic world
>shouldn't

See the problem here? "Shouldn't" implies normative ethic, which is exactly and specifically what nihilism rejects.

That's nice that you want to sit here and debate on what to do. Problem is, power is still being centralized, government and corporations are getting larger and more removed from the general population. Certain government officials and oligarchs have their money stashed globally, so we're not just fighting one country here.

To put forward any threat of revolt, you must be willing to act upon it. No half measures. So that's not really helping me when I say that I want to avoid a revolt if possible.

I'm not waiting for authoritarianism to come to the western world and ruin everything for a several generations just so that the bad actors can die from their own decadence and redirected ruthlessness.

We need a way to encourage governments and corporations to decentralize, but in a fashion that allows them to unite against certain issues. Using the blockchain to ensure connection to people in a global scale without all the cruft of institutions would be a step in the right direction. I still have a sinking feeling that TPTB will use this against us somehow, but it's our best shot to reform without actually revolting. And it's better than just talking and hoping that some statesman will rally the masses together when Bernie proved that they will do anything to prevent it.

Also, I know that blockchain isn't a silver bullet. I'm just a pissed off guy trying to throw ideas on the wall hoping one sticks.