Nihilist Club

**Byzantine Prince** · 07-28-2005, 20:55

Sat as I previously stated I simply regurgitated those points from the dictionary. I don't even think they apply to ALL nihilism. I wish someone would edit them out, because god knows I don't have the warn level to do so.

**_Martyr_** · 07-28-2005, 20:58

I got to this bit in the article and had to laugh.

anarchist leader

And I agree A.Saturnus, not only that but much of the article seems self defeatest along similar lines. In short, how can you believe truthfully that there are no truths without an inherant contradiction?

Care to explain BP?

**ICantSpellDawg** · 07-28-2005, 21:07

Originally Posted by _Martyr_

I got to this bit in the article and had to laugh.

And I agree A.Saturnus, not only that but much of the article seems self defeatest along similar lines. In short, how can you believe truthfully that there are no truths without an inherant contradiction?

Care to explain BP?

They get carried away in trying to make a standard beyond "believing in nothing" when it comes to identifying a nihilist.

I think that logical interpretations of life point to very little (I only say "very little" because "absolutly no" is a sweeping, foolish statement) objective truth, but I do not BELIEVE that there is no objective truth.

It just seems most likely that there isn't.
I HOPE that there is.

I FAVOR certain ideas, but I BELIEVE in nothing.

I am not a Nihilist because I do not BELIEVE in nothing.

**Byzantine Prince** · 07-28-2005, 21:12

I disagree, let me explain. The idealism of Nihilism was created by very complicated forms of writing. Just by reading Sartre and Nietzsche you can see that it's very difficult to comprehend what they are saying. The reason for this is that the ideas presented are very advanced and if not put into words properly come off as being defeatist and contradicotry. I think the article is flawed in the way it presents the ideas itself, but I give it enough credit as far as the facts are concerned.

There also comes a point where words can no longer desribe the truth, and one can only but comprehend himself through guidelines. Some things are taught, others require more personal thought behind them. I don't think it's right to dismis them that easily martyr.

**_Martyr_** · 07-28-2005, 21:15

There also comes a point where words can no longer desribe the truth

...wait a minute!!!???

**ICantSpellDawg** · 07-28-2005, 21:16

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

I disagree, let me explain. The idealism of Nihilism was created by very complicated forms of writing. Just by reading Sartre and Nietzsche you can see that it's very difficult to comprehend what they are saying. The reason for this is that the ideas presented are very advanced and if not put into words properly come off as being defeatist and contradicotry. I think the article is flawed in the way it presents the ideas itself, but I give it enough credit as far as the facts are concerned.

There also comes a point where words can no longer desribe the truth, and one can only but comprehend himself through guidelines. Some things are taught, others require more personal thought behind them. I don't think it's right to dismis them that easily martyr.

i do not think that Sartre is a nihilist. Neitsche is, id guess, but i am not sure that anyone really buys it. Logically it is a solid enough concept but practically it is weak.

**PanzerJaeger** · 07-28-2005, 21:20

I think its pretty clear. It seems to suggest that we humans put too much stock in our own inventions such as heaven, hell, truth, morality, the soul, ect - and that beyond society or humanity these things dont really exist and human life is nothing special on its own.

Let me know if this is wrong BP.

I can actually see some logic in my interpretation of it. Nothing in the universe, thus discovered, cares about morality and such, or has the ability to.

The belief in supernatural things like the soul can be argued to be a purely human invention.. that goes way beyond my little mind though.

**_Martyr_** · 07-28-2005, 21:23

The problem with that is that, that in itself is a human perception. A human viewpoint of an extra-human idea.

**Byzantine Prince** · 07-28-2005, 21:29

Good thinking Panzer. You are on the right track to enlightenment.

Martyr, you are what in the field is known as a skeptic's skeptic. You are skeptic about skeptics because you are insecure in your mind and logic. To you I only have one quote as advice: "When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares backs at you" - Nietzsche

PS. Sartre is not necessarily a Nihilist, but he has contributed a lot to it. Being and Nothingness is a must for any nihilists.

**lars573** · 07-29-2005, 00:04

I'll join, I constantly find myself agreing with Nietzsche (cept his anti-semetism and racisim).

**sharrukin** · 07-29-2005, 01:18

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

There also comes a point where words can no longer desribe the truth, and one can only but comprehend himself through guidelines. Some things are taught, others require more personal thought behind them.

I have always liked Nietzsche along with Thomas Hobbes as philosophers who generally avoided the utopian nonsense of too many of the others. However people have a deep need to believe. They believe in the replacement religions of Liberalism, Communism, Conservatism (the best one), or some other -ism. They believe in the old religions or new cults, but they believe!

People are not rational beings. They are a mix of rational and irrational and a philosophy that doesn't take both these things into account cannot have much validity. This is the reason that I believe religions have as much to tell us as ideologies or philosophies.

You may be referring to the irrational part of human nature here? Or do you mean something else?