Nihilism: nothing has a purpose, so why bother working hard

You are a machine created to pass on genes. That is your purpose.

Ideally I believe in existentialism, but the reality of how I live my life is much closer to nihilism.

>we create our own purpose even if we don't exist intrinsically
How do you call that?

STEMfags not recognising the harm biology (epistemes in general) has did to critical thinking is laughable.

This

But surely there's no tenet of nihilism that tells you to be lazy? I consider myself a nihilist, and while the most grand, overarching way to express this might be 'nothing has a purpose,' a better way to express how it comes into my daily life has more to do with perspectival moralism being an accepted part of the world. And, even if nothing matters, I want to make memories for myself, because they matter while I'm alive.

>STEMfags not recognising the harm biology (epistemes in general) has did to critical thinking is laughable.
Mind further explaining that idea?

Not him but the conclusion is retarded for various reasons.

>reproduction is just one aspect of the simplified definition of life
>it's literally reductionism
>Humes Law
>even within materialism, there are myriad theories that go beyond biodeterminism

Too lazy to write more down.
Point being that simply because previously strong concepts within philosophy have become questionable, this does not imply that nothing else is possible.
And just because some things might be true (that reproduction is fundamentally linked to life as we know it), this does not reduce "meaning" to these things. Or rather you disregard its meaning based on the same antiquated concepts which nihilism challenged. i.e.: There is a reason sex found its way in a shit ton of religions around the world and it would be stupid to discard that outright because "muh atheism".

Where's the option for 'OP doesn't understand what he's talking about'

Chordae tendineae (heart strings).

haha gross

Nihilism destroys progress
Absurdism creates lucid progress
Existentialism creates egotistical progress

we must work hard to create what must be in the absence of what was never present; Ourselves.

Not one idealism is true or false. For the sake of wisdom, all that is must be and is indeed.

It's actually beautiful you ninny

That's not what any of those mean. Nihilism (at least moral nihilism) would only claim that morality isn't real. That's not the same claim as have no purpose (since you can conceive of certain sorts of virtue ethics that can work within a nihilistic framework). Also nihilism wouldn't make any claims to whether or not to work hard. Neither is a necessary component of nihilism so which one is compelled to do would come from conclusions drawn after/outside of nihilism.

Absurdism is not that we must work hard but we must live in awareness of the Absurd, we must not deny it and we cannot negate it. Again working hard is not connected and either could be fashioned into it.

Your definition of existentialism is incompatible with Kierkegaard, Shestov, Marcel or any of the other religious existentialists I can think of. Existentialism =/= atheistic existentialism.

None. There is an intrinsic purpose.

than tell me what kind of thinking we need user

Can anyone here actually define existentialism? I don't really seem to understand it. Absurdism and nihilism I get, existentialism is as I understand it a lot broader and more nebulous

It's like absurdism but instead of embracing the absurd, you escape it.

>No quietism option.

Well considering that Nietzsche, Heidegger and Jasper could be said to be in accordance with embracing the Absurd (although not in the same terminology) I find this statement to be highly suspect. Also making such sweeping and broad statements about such an amorphis group of philosophers as the existentialist (especially considering almost none of them use or like the term and it's debatable who is and is not one) is also extremely suspect.

Who are the best authors for each? I know it's Camus and Kafka for Absurdism, but what about the other two?

Moral nihilism means the same thing as moral non-realism. It's a term so broad that there is no point bringing together writers who are it. It really is a useless term except to say that the person in question believes morality to be non-ontological. While moral realism is what 3/4 or 4/5 or moral philosophers agree with that still leaves thousands or tens of thousands of academic philosophers who are moral nihilists. You aren't going to get to anything useful trying to generalise such a huge percentage of philosophers.

Existentialism as a term describes a variety of philosophers with ideas so disparate it barely describes much at all. I mean what the fuck do Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Shestov, Marcel, Satre, Camus, Beauvoir, Heidegger and Jaspers et al have in common? Almost nothing but the vaguest sense of the individuals place in existence. It's an umbrella term used by convenience to link partially related figures rather than a strong description to unite people part of an ideology.

I seriously don't understand how you arrived at Kafka being an Absurdist. He might be, but I wouldn't see the sense in it more than the million other interpretations of his works people have. Camus is spot on though. He is the one who created Absurdism and it's only proponent.

youtube.com/watch?v=SJxcNJShBKo

This,
to be honest,
family.

Objective morality exists, we are just too stupid to figure out what it is

not that user, but maybe a 'playful' absurdism. If everything is/has no intrinsic purpose, those who can recognize it can bring anything purpose (either good or bad) as we see fit. See what happens if we play around, if it doesn't work out, don't take it personally because it didn't mean anything. I'm pretty sure there's a whole branch of thinking that says what I said but better.

neat

darwinian teleology cannot save you

life did not emerge on purpose, it came from random chemical reactions in le primordial soup. species do not evolve on purpose and only act to survive as individuals in a natural order of things having arisen from a randomized initial/primordial state

you're clearly an Existentialist; stop lying to yourself.

not that user, but the problem with the types of thinking listed is that they are too unflinching in their logic, and eventually lead in a circle in which they explain themselves away.
>if everything is X then nothing is X

Existentialism is for pussy-fags!

Aren't absurdism and existentialism just subsets of nihilism? The
>why bother working hard
part seems largely up to the individual themselves rather than an tenet of nihilism itself.

this
>circle
postmodernism

go fuck yourself on a spike.

absurdism except you create your own meaning and the self is above all else

Absurdism is predicated upon nihilism but existentialism is not. Not all existentialists are nihilists. There are Christian and Jewish existentialists. You cannot reconcile either religion with moral nihilism.

>progress
spooki

progress is inevitable, as the progress of collapse, wildfire

Its strange that even nietzsche agreed with existencialism. Nothing has meaning but we have a choice of creating meaning so we dont die out of depression.

Even freud agrees with that. On traumas when someone cant give meaning to a certain memory (there was a text on war traumas that he explained this.) The only solution for this kind of neurosis was to let the patient create a meaning to the memory, because the memory itself had no meaning at all. it was like a blank page and that was unbearable.

What actually is quietism?

I see it as not putting your faith in words.

Essentially, all problems are information problems, as only in a framework can problems arise. Words, ideas and concepts are something not that is outside of entropy, and the apprehension of them as being of a different nature than sensory perception is a misunderstandment of what verbal language is. So constructing something like "a philosophy to end philosophy" is complete folly, because all of the things that that would be based on are in constant decay and renewal; this makes problems a never ending dialectic, so the best stance is one which adresses this, and posits a framework that is to solve them particularly, as they arise, and not enclosing them by its methodology.

Isn't it similar to skepticism?

utilitarianism: The purpose is to reduce suffering. If reducing suffering does not affirm life then fuck you, that doesn't make us nihilists

How would you define skepticism? If we're going by there not being any certainties, that's not it exactly. If you ask me conception aren't true or untrue, since for something to be actually true it would require it to be 1) eternally true (and in an endless duration anything happens), 2) unconditionally true (and there are no unconditional things). So to say things are uncertain is in itself a certainty, that is, it's self-defeating.

Not being any certainties, yes.
Does quietism reject the idea of an absolute truth entirely, or rather, admits that its existence is unknowable?

>to say things are uncertain is in itself a certainty, that is, it's self-defeating
That reminds me of taoism in a way.

And meanwhile us hedonists are too busy drinking mojitos and having sex with women

who's the true winner here

>Absurdism is not that we must work hard but we must live in awareness of the Absurd, we must not deny it and we cannot negate it.

This

Absurdism is the application of Nihilism to itself.

Nihilism = Nothing matters, nothing has meaning, nothing has value. This is the only truth.

If you apply this to itself, then even Nihilism is meaningless. Ergo, then NOTHING is true and everything is Absurd and pointless.

The Absurdist is just a Nihilist who has found a way to continue living with this understanding, acknowledging everything is Absurd but continuing regardless - maybe even continuing into delusion, but remaining cognizant that it is Absurd nonetheless.

See, if something is unknowable it's for all uses and purposes inexistent. The question of whether there's some absolute essence out there is kind of moot anyway, because for it to be absolute means it is always what is being perceived, so saying one thing is truer would be like saying a hand is less of a part of a body than an eye is. Absolutist statements only create a model on which to look for patterns on which to justify the model.

Who cares? Fucking nerd.

In my house sometimes the sister's toys turn on on their own and tvs turn off at late night.
But that's nothing.
Almost every midnight the phone alarm starts ringing. EVERY MIDNIGHT. It shows some strange numbers like 21:47 and it rings until I shut down. And this happens every midnight. And yes! I checked all phone settings, did factory reset and.. Nothing.. This still persist. However, one day it just magically stopped ringing.
BUT! Exactly 2 years after my father's death, it started all over again. The strange alarm with strange message in midnight. I don't know what's happening.

t. someone who started and stopped at Camus.

I do. Fuck off.