Are people who say nihilism can be overcome just in denial?

Sure you can.

No outside reason, sure.
But there's really absolutely nothing that stops us from deciding for ourselves. Maybe I will decide to act like I believe in some objective value, maybe I won't. Maybe I will simply decide that what feels good is what I will do. Nihilism doesn't mean that I don't exist, that I can't feel.

I think the main problem with many self-proclaimed nihilists is that they nonetheless put value in value itself, thus making nihilism somehow depressing. If there is no value in anything, there is no value in value, either, thus: no reason to grieve the lack of value.

What would you recommend to read for someone wanting to dip his toes into Heidegger for the first time?

>. We should create the best world we can

Why should we?

So that others can enjoy what we sacrificed our only life working on after our death, probably.

>Implying we won't leave the solar system in 5 billion years

Working for something greater than yourself is incredibly fulfilling. And besides, how do you KNOW there's nothing after death?

This post is fundamentally the problem with nihilism and certain strands of existentialism its simply talking in circles.

> Rejoice, there's no real reason to anything means there's no real reason to live and there's no real reason kill yourself.

How do you know the objective of life isn't tickling caterpillars for sure?

Pascal's wager a shit.

Any coherent philosophy comes down to tautology.

You either talk in circles self-referentially or you talk nonsense.

If nothing is real, but something exists, would there be no meaning for not existing, and no reason not to be real?

What reason do you have for believing in souls.

I like this guy

Here there be someone who only knows the straw-man version of Pascal's wager

Pascal's wager is a strawman.

It makes me happy and allows me to delve deeper into my own consciousness?

That's very strange because it should have the exact opposite effect. It's a belief that causes the universe to stop making sense and seem hostile to thought.

> It's a belief that causes the universe to stop making sense and seem hostile to thought.

Flowing straight from the New Atheist scrolls are we?

Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration..

I'm not an atheist.

>muh ride

> everyone dies so nothing matters

i think if i captured you, killed your loved ones before your eyes and let you slowly starve youd feel a strong sense your suffering matters. just because it wont be permanent doesnt mean its pointless. that being said i do think suicide should be encouraged in society, it minimizes suffering. i know life is fun sometimes but i feel like its mostly struggle in nearly every instance and it mostly gets worse after a short period of time nobody fully appreciates during it. everything that is conscious wants what they desire (sometimes its death or self harm but still even that indicates preference), if every conscious creature desires avoiding discomfort/seeking pleasure then it is objectively the most important thing. if the well being of all current and future creatures is close to worthless but worth more than anything else (like 1$ compared to none) its important compared to all other things

t. Scientist.

peasoup.typepad.com/peasoup/2007/03/is_equality_goo.html

still entirely hinged on believing on the well being of creatures mattering. like i said before, avoiding suffering is important. id rather 100 people be bored than 97 be in pure bliss and three tortured

That is a great fucking demo

Mass consensus is not objectivity.

what are you even trying to deny here? that happiness is good? i feel like happiness is good is like saying fire is hot, everything that can sense happiness enjoys it. thats damn near objective unless reality doesnt exist or something else that would disprove everything

Statements don't become more objective when more people agree on it. The whole notion of objectivity is that it is independent of subjects.

>everything that can sense happiness enjoys it
isnt that objective right there?

link?

No, they're just superior to you.

I've played SAMP for 7 years, no missions, just goals, lots of short-term goals. Gather with your gang and kill the enemy, kill a particular person etc etc. This is sort of how I view life, a bunch of stuff piquing your interest that you'd wanna go after, or fun stuff to do. This is the "meaning" if there is one.

I'm wondering what a nihilist would think of this?

Oh also, I don't care about objective value, I don't believe such a thing exists, nor do I believe that any such concept has any meaningful value.

>Nietzsche, the most famous nihilist
moron

No, but I understand why you think that. The syllogism is not complicated - enjoyment belongs to the essence of happiness; people sense happiness; therefore they enjoy it.
But we come to a problem here that is circular in character, which is a problem anyone versed in philosophy knows as Euthyphro's dilemna - is someone happy because it enjoys something, or does someone enjoy something it because it makes it happy? This is an unanswerable question. It is unanswerable, because if either of the terms define each other, which is to say, belongs to the essence of each other, then nothing is really being defined, and, by extension, neither happiness nor enjoyment has an essence.

The problem from thinking that way is then that happiness or enjoyment has no meaning. If one cannot feel happiness or enjoyment - or remember either in a clear sense, which would be what the intellect does when it defines happiness (the greater part of the time that it does so) - figuring out what is signified by that word is impossible. Therefore >everything that can sense happiness enjoys it can subjectively have no semantic meaning, or any real meaning, because neither has an essence.

Let's take an easy example: let's say that someone is a devout religious individual, but loses control of themselves and masturbates. The idea that what is good here cannot be objective if what is the measure of good is "happiness" - the guilt and the sexual pleasure are far too heavy on one another, and even perhaps inseparable from one another, that good cannot apply to either side.

Simplistic worldviews, such as yours, are only possible because you convince them to yourself with what is called by the art of rhetoric as enargia. Enargia strictly means only vividness, but I think what its efficacy signifies is that the structure of the image of objectivity is the most subjective of subjectivity.

>is someone happy because it enjoys something, or does someone enjoy something it because it makes it happy?
It doesn't matter, as long as happiness/enjoyment is derived.

>Let's take an easy example: let's say that someone is a devout religious individual, but loses control of themselves and masturbates. The idea that what is good here cannot be objective if what is the measure of good is "happiness" - the guilt and the sexual pleasure are far too heavy on one another, and even perhaps inseparable from one another, that good cannot apply to either side.

In this example, it's either a net negative of enjoyment due to the subsequent misery/unhappiness/unenjoyment inflicted by the guilt, or a net gain in happiness due the enjoyment. It's hard to say since we can't quantify it, nor can we quantify all the additional factors that would go into it, or could possibly go into it later. For example, he may start pondering over his guilt and how it's illogical and eventually drop it altogether, producing a net-benefit in enjoyment/happiness for whatever time he has left to live.

Personally I'd go with that producing more misery than enjoyment due to the formula time * happiness. (or time * unhappiness), but again, this is assuming it has no effect whatsoever on his mental state aside from the feelings of guilt, not leading him to make wiser decisions etc. These are ultimately things we can't really know either. so I suppose they're rightfully removed from the equation.

How is Nietzsche not the most famous nihilist?
Retarded cunt

have you even read nietzsche?

You're not counting I added "and avoid suffering" from the very beginning. guilt is suffering. is right when they say about how maybe they'll realize their guilt is non sensical. it is based in an ideology firmly planted in contradiction and scientifically incorrect assumptions, thats getting off topic though. the matter at hand, pleasure is good, suffering isnt. its about as objective as something can be. somethings hove mixed negatives in positives like religious indoctrination or drug addiction. why is heroin bad? because it prevents the addict from developing lasting and less destructive forms of happiness, as well as preventing the happiness of their loved ones who dont want to see them steal, self-destruct or wind up in jail. with the religion example the problem could apply to anything. lets say someone "talked to god", "god" told them all humans are trying to convince them to sin by talking to them. human interaction isnt the problem, without that belief theyd enjoy it most likely, but the belief causes the suffering. everything has negatives and positives but some things so heavily out weigh the negatives they are as objectively good as something could be. ex. devoting free time to charity work. it makes the charitable person feel good and helps others in the process but maybe their spouse doesnt see enough of them or their neglecting their work. it would still be wrong to insist people shouldnt spend time doing that because there is undeniably some more productive use of time they havent thought of. its good enough and the drawbacks are so minuscule when compared with the positives. you say my world view is simple and i convince myself of it but it seems you are the one speaking in absolutes trying to justify selfish apathy. I'm admitting tons of grey areas while making one statement of fact you cant disprove. seeking happiness and avoiding suffering is the most significant thing in life. you're jerking off christian example falls right into the pro-happiness/anti-sadness idea only further proves me right. Euthyphro's dilemma is pointless obfuscation which states that two words are synonyms so therefore neither matter. creatures prefer happiness, dont be ridiculous.

because not a nihilist you fucking autistic babby

the canon of western philosophy pre-heidegger might help

Done read it

dat hegelianism seeping through

Firstly, the post you responded to was my one and only post here, I never called your world-view simplistic.

I agree with mostly all of what you've written, too. I don't see much of a "rebuttal" here, if that was even your intent.

This seems to be the point of contention
>it would still be wrong to insist people shouldnt spend time doing that because there is undeniably some more productive use of time they havent thought of.

I would never do that, since good enough is usually good enough, it's hard to figure out what the best cause is, and just thinking about it may not actually give you that, rather it may just fall into your lap from experience. Wasting time trying to get from 92% to 94% efficiency is also a factor that should be factored in.

Again, you seem to be working under the assumption that I believe you should always operate at 100%, whereas I actually believe you should try to strive for 100% as best as you can. I'll just throw in here that yeah, it'd suck if psychopaths adopted this world view. Personally I have a lot of empathy, so making other people happy makes me happy and thus it's not neglecting other people either. I can't stand having people I care about being annoyed at me, it's something I'd want to resolve ASAP to get back to my positive emotional state.

Again though, I don't believe in any objective point of life, this is MY point of life. So picking it is subjective, but the measure has some level of objectivity (though we can never be precise).

>you're jerking off christian example falls right into the pro-happiness/anti-sadness idea only further proves me right.
It wasn't my example, it was the guy I quoted's example, and my intention wasn't to prove you wrong either. If anything we're both "right" here (again, no objective right imo, this just seems like the most reasonable way to go about living in this world.)

They could be trolling.

i think you missed the point of the charity part. my point was it has negatives as well even though in essence it is just helping by definition but there could still have been other things they've neglected in that process. its still objectively better, provided you admit innocent people shouldn't suffer and should be happy, that someone do charity work rather than torture cats. the poster i thought you were said well what about jerking off christians? they're guilty so meaning is subjective. my whole rebuttal was for them. the christians goal in being anti sex is (mistakenly) trying to cultivate more lasting forms of happiness. my point was him making that point admits guilt is bad even though pleasure is good. i was making the point to them that just because it has positives and negatives like everything doesnt disprove seeking pleasure and avoiding pain is the meaning of life.

as for where i disagree with you would be subjective meaning. all people seek happiness and avoid negative feelings. if someone has kids, rapes someone or sells their possessions to feed the poor they are doing it because its what they perceive to want for lasting happiness, or even fleeting happiness. i think a case could easily be made somethings objectively stifle the happiness of innocent creatures. if 5% of the population are slaves the immense suffering of those who've done no wrong to the owners (at that point you could justify just about doing anything to them so well assume theyre innocent) is not outweighed by the slight joy and unnecessary luxury given to the owners. if a culture treats lets say 50% of the population like shit it snuffs out the happiness of innocent people for the slight joy of sadistic bastards. even if their joy was greater than the suffering caused theyd still be wrong because avoiding suffering (for the innocent) is more important than creating joy (even if they were innocent, but in this case they arent because they're deriving joy from suffering of non consenting parties)

This. Nihilism is not the end of the discussion, it's the adolescence between obsession with ideological ontologies and the existential freedom of thought.

I agree with you, but now we're getting into morals rather than what I consider (for my self at least) to be a good (or from my point of view, the most logical or "best") goal in life.

>i think you missed the point of the charity part. my point was it has negatives as well even though in essence it is just helping by definition but there could still have been other things they've neglected in that process.
No, not at all. I agreed completely with it.

>.. better ... that someone do charity work rather than torture cats
I agree, my goal/worldview isn't really something I'd like a psychopath or someone without empathy to adopt. I also agree it's very noble and whatnot to help others, personally though I wouldn't do it at the expense of my own happiness.

>i think a case could easily be made somethings objectively stifle the happiness of innocent creatures. if 5% of the population are slaves the immense suffering of those who've done no wrong to the owners (at that point you could justify just about doing anything to them so well assume theyre innocent) is not outweighed by the slight joy and unnecessary luxury given to the owners
I agree, it'd be morally wrong (which I define as producing a net deficit of happiness in the world).

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on morals. But my worldview doesn't conflict with my (and seemingly your) view of morals, given that immoral actions produce a deficit of happiness for me. The case would be different for a psychopath or if I suddenly got a brain anomaly that caused me to behave in an immoral way and derive pleasure from it, let's just hope that doesn't happen.

If they're materialists, yes.

I'm really considering suicide

That sucks man, are you already exercising, socializing and doing all other things proven to help? I'd throw in meditation there, I'm sure feeling that pure euphoria from becoming present could become something to strive for.

I know it's hard if depressed, but there's also no easy way out as far as I'm aware. You should probably also make sure your hormone levels are stable or get on some medication to even them out.

Nihilism isn't a choice, it's a physiological characteristic.