Disgusting.
I find it ironic that a Nihilist would truly care…for what are sexual organs apart from regions of the body with a high concentration of nerve endings…? What are said nerves other than conduits capable of transmitting signals to the mass of organic matter known as the brain…? What is the brain apart from a concentration of neurons capable of translating such signals in order to determine the appropriate related chemical releases…?
So for what purpose might a Nihilist be concerned that an immature human specimen might have been subjected to a premature excitation of said nerve endings, which in turn may have resulted in a series of unexpected mental experiences brought about by chemical release?
For while certainly the Humanist might be concerned as to the consequences of such a situation due to a concern for the welfare of the psyche of the child…and certainly the Religious might be concerned as the welfare of the spirit or soul of the child…and surely the Legalist might merely be dissatisfied that an entity, who in former times had little in the way of legal protection, might have had certain basic rights offended…and perhaps even the Economist might be taken to fret about the possible cost to society in terms of a potential future drain on the collective’s productivity brought about by the child’s considered detachment from a normative upbringing translating into a future dividend of costly antisocial behavior…but clearly the Nihilist has little logical concern for any of these…so how might such a lack devolve so readily into substantive disgust?
I think it’s disgusting because when people do things that I wouldn’t want done to me I get disgusted. It’s basic human empathy, which is a biological trait. I have been told that I lack empathy because I don’t like the Mormon religion and didn’t understand Warbler’s reasoning for leaving the forum. I don’t know what any of that shit has to do with empathy, but disgust at child rape is a healthy reaction to such a crime. It doesn’t mean that I accept any kind of intrinsic meaning in life, and my thoughts on the subject are also consistent with the nihilistic notion that morality is a human construct.
Why might disgust be considered a ‘healthy’ reaction to anything given nothing has within it an intrinsic value?
By what standards is it considered healthy? To what standards is it reacting against or towards?
I already addressed that. Empathy is the ability of a conscious organism to recognize the feelings of another, which is critical to the survival of the species because otherwise it would likely destroy itself either through violence or the inability to cooperate. My natural paternal instincts are probably kicking in too, which is an evolutionary construct. Even though I thankfully haven’t been irresponsible enough to create a child, I still feel compelled to protect kids or see them protected from dangerous things or people. These responses are healthy because it’s what human beings without severe mental disorders do, just like it’s healthy to feel hunger if you haven’t eaten in a long time and it’s healthy to feel pain when your hair gets pulled out. I never said that I chose to feel disgusted or anything like that. As I nihilist I don’t demand that all “moral” (and again, people disagree on what constitutes morality) behavior be rejected, I just acknowledge that morality is a human construct, which it is. That doesn’t mean that it’s “bad” or whatever. It just means that it lacks intrinsic value or meaning, which it also does. Everything is irrelevant or meaningless to something somewhere.
Also, just because something is valuable to me, that doesn’t mean it has intrinsic value.
I commend you for your well considered response…it was more than I had hoped to receive when first I had asked the questions and it truly speaks highly of you as a properly grounded individual…
When considering one’s proper nihilism, there certainly appears to be something of a variable distance between some of those qualities offered as normative or indigenous to nature and the more rational world view brought about purely by purposeful reflection…but might one truly accept the belief that one may so alter one’s nihilism so as to at times accept an arbitrary standard without intrinsic value?
Perhaps. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with doing something or even appreciating something that has no intrinsic value, so long as you acknowledge that it’s devoid of any intrinsic value.
Fair enough…
For little appears to come to the nihilist by way of reflex without also having an attached explanation and understanding of its base causes–the lack of which must needs surely reduce the views of said nihilist to some form of composite belief in a greater perspective outside that of his own deep well, while, alternately, the understanding of which must plausibly reduce the former (that is to say, the reflex as stated) to something which may either be accepted willingly or deliberately avoided…
I’m just going to be honest and admit that I don’t understand this paragraph.
Translation: Given that the nihilist tends to generally favor reason over reflex, or, perhaps more properly, given that few reflex actions might be undertaken without also sparking a reasoned explanation for same within the mind of the nihilist, would it not appear, at least on the surface, that a nihilist who might feel reflexive responses to any crossing of social mores must needs be subscribing to some sort of underlying morality–which event must, in turn, necessarily distance the nihilist from his purported stated stance of categorizing morality as merely a human construct?
To further clarify: is not the nihilist’s claim to his stated view manifestly compromised with the acceptance of any level of arbitrary morality?
Please note that this was merely to add clarity to a previously ambiguous statement to which I feel you have already adequately supplied a later answer so feel free to dismiss this as repetitive.
For in comprehending morality to be little aside from a human construct, what over-arching demand requires one to accept it entirely without alternative or alteration…? If no such demand, is it not then acceptable to rationalize and then dismiss by degree…or perhaps even by whole measure?
Yet if one is capable of choosing whether or not to dismiss such impulses, what might drive one to fully (or even partially) embrace some whilst rejecting others? For how can the same individual be crowned a humanitarian in one setting and a devil in another, well all the while maintaining a sporadic moral code that he knows to be arbitrary? For even if some such acceptance might be made based upon the claim that so doing might merely be in answer to a natural impulse or order, why obey either of such?
For is not nihilism, by its very definition, the acceptance of all morality (impulsive or created) as meaningless? If so, how might one willingly abstain from some ‘meaninglessness’ whilst enjoining a serious acceptance of any of the rest?
A lot of people do pick and choose which morals they care about. There are plenty of adulterers that don’t kill anyone, and there are plenty of murderers that never hurt children, and there are plenty of thieves that are otherwise kindhearted. What ultimately keeps people from doing the exact opposite of everything that society deems moral is a combination of empathy and the selfish realization that you won’t be accepted in society (and you might even face serious physical consequences including death) if you don’t play by the rules. I don’t want to commit crimes against other people because I can see how it would hurt them and I wouldn’t want that happening to me or anyone that I care about. The nonviolent crimes that I do want to commit, I abstain from because I understand that it wouldn’t be worth going to jail, or going to court, or being ostracized, or having to do community service. There are totally rational explanations for this kind of behavior.
Is it to be considered possible that some emotions might yet be expected to be entirely more powerful than the pure mental rationalizations of the deep nihilist…?
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. The human brain is a very powerful organ and for that reason emotions are already extremely powerful.
Is the avowed nihilist capable of overriding his empathy should he so choose? If so, does his conscience truly bother him? If further so, why might such [his unsettled conscience] be true or even possible?
Alternately, if the nihilist is incapable of overriding his empathy–which he must certainly view as merely an acquired emotion–why might he lack this apparent control over his mere chemical impulses?
Or, alternately, is it possible that a nihilist might choose to accept certain arbitrary impulses in order to better conform with the normative view so as to avoid unnecessary conflict…?
Sure. Why not? I avoid saying things in some situations, not because I care about offending the people I’m around, but because I know that I’ll be given shit for it if I do say it.
Fair enough…
Yet, by so doing, is it truly possible or appropriate for him to share in the outrage when such arbitrary mores might be offended?
I’m a very angry person and I’m not capable of just opting out of being pissed off at something. It’s a gut reaction that I largely can’t control and was probably a result of some combination of genetics and upbringing. The best I could do is pretend not to be angry, but that’s not honest at all.
I sense in many respects our methods of thinking are fairly compatible…certainly our overall world-view does not appear to overly diverge…though anger is an emotion I largely jettisoned long ago (along with several others of an equally distracting nature), I suspect to have met me in my youth would have revealed little by which to denote notable contrast…