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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Person in Question
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…
I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton
“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”
Praetorian, I think your points would be better understood if your used simpler or more common language. You “translated” one confusingly verbose post by following up with another very-sightly-less confusingly verbose one.
Also, it occurs to me that just because someone identifies as nihilist, that doesn’t mean they must adhere to every facet of it.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
Yeah, to put it less politely, some of your posts border on word salad to me. I don’t say that to be mean, I just genuinely don’t quite know if I’m interpreting your posts correctly they’re just so complexly worded. Perhaps that makes me a simpleton, but it’s the truth. I think I get your recent response so I’ll give it a shot.
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?
There are plenty of things that go against a worldview that people go along with regardless. Christians support Donald Trump, militant atheists still use money (that says “In God We Trust” on it). Just because morality is a human construct doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily a bad thing. Houses are a human construct; I still live in one.
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?
Of course. Guilt is natural but also not always rational. In high school and college I felt really guilty about having sex because I had been conditioned to find it immoral or dangerous. I felt guilty even though I had no rational reason to do so, but I still did what was against my unsettled conscience anyway and eventually I didn’t feel guilty anymore. Anyone’s capable of overriding their empathy. That’s how people are able to fight in wars or hurt people for whatever justification they have.
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?
No one can control their chemical impulses directly. I could be a really lazy fuck and still get a burst of adrenaline when someone tries to rob me.
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…
I’m an angry guy, and I doubt that’ll change with age. I was brought up by angry people, I was constantly around anger, berating, insults, and violence from infancy to adolescence and I can’t even imagine life without anger.
The Person in Question
Yeah, to put it less politely, some of your posts border on word salad to me. I don’t say that to be mean, I just genuinely don’t quite know if I’m interpreting your posts correctly they’re just so complexly worded. Perhaps that makes me a simpleton, but it’s the truth. I think I get your recent response so I’ll give it a shot.
No offense taken…I genuinely appreciate your efforts…
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?
There are plenty of things that go against a worldview that people go along with regardless. Christians support Donald Trump, militant atheists still use money (that says “In God We Trust” on it). Just because morality is a human construct doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily a bad thing. Houses are a human construct; I still live in one.
I suspect a level of parity might better be reached if one might consider Christians willing to see Trump as a messiah, or atheists being somehow agreeable to offering a tithe to the nearest church, or an avowed anti-capitalist who might happily accept to make millions through the sale of his biography, or a proponent for climate change action using a private jet to transport themselves to discussions of the topic, or one allowing themselves to reside in a home whose rental proceeds might make possible the strengthening of a political adversary…for the consideration put forth was that in both subscribing to a nihilist worldview (which is one in which nothing of substance truly and sincerely matters and that all ascribed morality was done largely for materialistic purposes) while at the same time allowing for the expression of outrage/disgust at the exposition of one willing to transgress one of such very arbitrary concepts as previously stated, a contradiction in terms as clear as those above outlined appeared to come to light…
For how can one logically express outrage that a member of a religion (to which said one does not subscribe and gives no particular substance) transgressed a moral principle (whose value one does not consider larger than a cultural norm) that that very religion was largely responsible for establishing as taboo in the first place (given its strong focus on expressly forbidding any form of sexuality outside that of wedlock)…?
Clearly would not a true nihilist merely regard the entire parade of events as little more than a mild distraction in an otherwise uneventful day?
If not, what substance might said nihilist use to hang his helping of disgust upon?
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?
Of course. Guilt is natural but also not always rational. In high school and college I felt really guilty about having sex because I had been conditioned to find it immoral or dangerous. I felt guilty even though I had no rational reason to do so, but I still did what was against my unsettled conscience anyway and eventually I didn’t feel guilty anymore. Anyone’s capable of overriding their empathy. That’s how people are able to fight in wars or hurt people for whatever justification they have.
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?
No one can control their chemical impulses directly. I could be a really lazy fuck and still get a burst of adrenaline when someone tries to rob me.
Would said burst then require a specific action, or could it be controlled and reasoned into passivity?
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…
I’m an angry guy, and I doubt that’ll change with age. I was brought up by angry people, I was constantly around anger, berating, insults, and violence from infancy to adolescence and I can’t even imagine life without anger.
Please accept my sincere condolences for your past misfortune…as well as my understanding for your accepted current state…but I offer nothing in the way of sympathy for your purported future failure to imagine a means by which to overcome your admittedly excessive negative passion…for while I readily respect your intellect, your lassitude as to its ability to escape its own self-constraints is at the very least unfortunate…
This is said with all sincerity, as I view you to hold a great deal of potential…even if possibly obfuscated by anger instead of sharpened by reason for the time being…
I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton
“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”
Praetorian, I think your points would be better understood if your used simpler or more common language. You “translated” one confusingly verbose post by following up with another very-sightly-less confusingly verbose one.
Quite certainly that would logically be the case…but the amalgam of my thoughts do not necessarily run quite so readily downstream…or, to clarify, in trimming substance from verbosity it would seem necessary to curtail a great deal of said considerations to mere fragments…or, perhaps to clarify further still:
“What might be the fun in that?” 😉
Also, it occurs to me that just because someone identifies as nihilist, that doesn’t mean they must adhere to every facet of it.
That is most certainly debatable (which is, essentially, what I have been essaying with MFM)…for what had reasonably occurred to me was that his identification with nihilism appeared sufficiently different from my own to warrant an inquiry…and possibly an entry into the aforementioned debate…for if the definition of nihilism might be the rejection of morality’s underlying stricture, is not every accedence to said morality necessarily an admission and/or acceptance of that which they purport to regard as merely the construct of human convenience?
Or, to clarify, given my own nihilistic tendencies I simply failed to have an instinctive reaction in the same vein as that experienced by MFM and so I was mildly curious as to why…
I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton
“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”
I’m disgusted by people in general. 99% of people make me sick to my stomach for a variety of reasons, so the child-rapists in the Catholic Church are just one of many examples of why I hate the human race. I don’t really understand your point because I’ve admitted that I don’t believe anything has any kind of intrinsic value. Just because I value something, that doesn’t mean that it’s intrinsically important. I’m not claiming that I don’t care about anything, just that nothing is inherently important.
The Person in Question
Reason seems a terrible burden for nihilists, although without it they might believe in something.
The blue elephant in the room.
How is it reasonable to believe that anything has any intrinsic meaning? Either participate in the discussion or don’t say anything, please. Posts like that that say absolutely nothing are just a waste of everyone’s time.
The Person in Question
Praetorian, I think your points would be better understood if your used simpler or more common language. You “translated” one confusingly verbose post by following up with another very-sightly-less confusingly verbose one.
Don’t worry, he knows… 😛
Or, to clarify, given my own nihilistic tendencies I simply failed to have an instinctive reaction in the same vein as that experienced by MFM and so I was mildly curious as to why…
I would say because not all nihilists are created equal. I mean, I identify my faith as a Baptist but I have additional or alternative ideas for certain things that may not necessarily be in keeping with official Baptist doctrine.
I would say that such labels are a social construct that may not fully encompass the scope and depth of what one truly believes or holds as truth, even if they generally identify as belonging to certain labels. So just because MFM (or yourself) says he is/you are a nihilist, that shouldn’t paint him or you into a corner to only believe what is strictly defined as nihilist.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
I feel like I’ve been pretty clear on how I operate and how I reconcile caring about things while being a nihilist.
The Person in Question
How is it reasonable to believe that anything has any intrinsic meaning? Either participate in the discussion or don’t say anything, please. Posts like that that say absolutely nothing are just a waste of everyone’s time.
Far be it from me to waste everyone’s time! Yet you have little cause to be so hasty.
Let me clarify, as they say. It is by reason that you come to believe nothing has intrinsic value. If you were to not rely on (good) reason then you might, like many people, believe in intrinsic value. That seems to be what you’re saying.
But why should we even believe that reason is a thing to be trusted? Why should reason stand apart from empathy or other things you call mere biological traits. Even as it relates to applying our reason to the physical world, it is broadly accepted that we are imposing constructs that cannot capture the supposed reality of things. Doesn’t reason exist for the same purpose as other biological traits?
The Scarecrow listened carefully, and said, “I cannot understand why you should wish to leave this beautiful country and go back to the dry, gray place you call Kansas.”
“That is because you have no brains” answered the girl. “No matter how dreary and gray our homes are, we people of flesh and blood would rather live there than in any other country, be it ever so beautiful. There is no place like home.”
The Scarecrow sighed.
“Of course I cannot understand it,” he said. “If your heads were stuffed with straw, like mine, you would probably all live in the beautiful places, and then Kansas would have no people at all. It is fortunate for Kansas that you have brains.”
The blue elephant in the room.
OF COURSE HOUSES ARE A HUMAN CONSTRUCT
A HILARIOUS HUMAN CONSTRUCT
‘German Catholic priests ‘abused thousands of children’’…
A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…
Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
‘How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com; some info & answers + FAQs - includes info on how to search for projects and threads on the OT•com
A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)
… and take your time to look around this site before posting - to get a feel for this place. Don’t just lazily make yet another thread asking for projects.
“Oh, that’s just typical of any institution. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along… Please?”
In seriousness, I think there’s a solid argument for the Catholic Church being federally dismantled. I think it can be considered a crime ring at this point.
The Person in Question
Federally dismantled by who? The Vatican is its own sovreign state.
.
Federally dismantled in each of the countries that it operates in.
The Person in Question
‘German Catholic priests ‘abused thousands of children’’…
It’s just sick. The fact that the Catholic Church has lasted so long with so many evil people (if they can be called that) in the ranks of its clergy is a miracle (and I mean that quite literally). I hope they think hell is worth it.
“Oh, that’s just typical of any institution. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along… Please?”
In seriousness, I think there’s a solid argument for the Catholic Church being federally dismantled. I think it can be considered a crime ring at this point.
The Catholic Church is primarily made up of lay people, not priests. And I have a lot of hope in the quality of modern seminaries (the 60s to 90s produced countless unbelievably terrible priests). You’re right though, the Church has a serious problem. If any of those priests can’t be prosecuted civilly for some reason, a bread and water fast and solitary confinement in a monastery somewhere should be imposed on them for the rest of their lives. That’s more like how the Church used to deal with them.
‘German Catholic priests ‘abused thousands of children’’…
It’s just sick. The fact that the Catholic Church has lasted so long with so many evil people (if they can be called that) in the ranks of its clergy is a miracle (and I mean that quite literally). I hope they think hell is worth it.
There’s no reason to believe hell is real, but obviously they don’t think it’ll happen to them. Then again, Christ never bothered to condemn child molestation and the Church has done everything imaginable to accommodate them. It makes me wonder if they even consider it a problem. Judging by the behavior of the Church hierarchy, this type of behavior is something that they want to preserve. If not, then why have it as an official policy to never go to the police, and instead transfer the offender to an unsuspecting parish?
The Person in Question
“The Church hierarchy” is a bit of a generalization. There are plenty of places in the world (such as where I live) where calling the police is and has been the official policy for some time. It’s currently also the policy to immediately remove a priest from ministry if he’s been accused of abuse. So it isn’t as if the entire hierarchy of the Church has decided to pretend everything’s OK and brush sexual abuse under the rug. The reality is that in some regions, corruption is very widespread and pervasive, and in others, it’s almost nonexistent. No one’s praising the non-corrupt members of the hierarchy in the media, however, because they’re expected to not be corrupt and evil. Every priest and cleric I know is deeply wounded by and angry at the sexual abuse that is rife in the Church.
I’m no fan of religion (well, except the FSM). However, is the abuse rate any higher in the catholic church than in other religions? Or even when compared to large secular organizations? I haven’t seen any such statistics, and I wonder if it is just an unfortunate aspect of humanity in general.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
I’m no fan of religion (well, except the FSM). However, is the abuse rate any higher in the catholic church than in other religions? Or even when compared to large secular organizations? I haven’t seen any such statistics, and I wonder if it is just an unfortunate aspect of humanity in general.
It’s not just that, it’s the institutional coverups. If any secular organization, or even a smaller religious institution, did that, then they’d be brought down immediately after it came to light.
The Person in Question
I’m no fan of religion (well, except the FSM). However, is the abuse rate any higher in the catholic church than in other religions? Or even when compared to large secular organizations? I haven’t seen any such statistics, and I wonder if it is just an unfortunate aspect of humanity in general.
It’s not just that, it’s the institutional coverups. If any secular organization, or even a smaller religious institution, did that, then they’d be brought down immediately after it came to light.
I agree it’s horrendous. But again, are there statistics that the amount of coverup is higher? We sometimes hear of agencies, schools, companies, etc, just transferring people. My university has covered up abuse cases, smeared victims, etc to cover their ass. Of course it’s bad, and especially noticeable coming from a group claiming such a high level of righteousness. But is it all that unique?
I am not claiming it isnt, I’m just actually curious.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars