Personal Nihilism

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by gamelord, Jun 7, 2018.

  1. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Nihilism means to nullify, or negate. It is an open-ended word but what it has come to mean for me is this.

    Humanity seems to be stuck in a kind of "Mental Nihilism" where the human being is viewed as the Prime Mover, or First Caused Force.
    So in the Nihilistic human mind,
    Humans are the first degree of "world"
    Nature the second degree of "world".

    Laws are circulated to reflect within their own framework. Actions, "free will", choice, is not first evaluated by "Nature" but first evaluated by, "Human", "Law". An action is first evaluated is, "Is it illegal"? Meaning, does a conglomerate of random alpha tribal humans (usually male), of an organized human gang, judge me possibly negatively for doing such a thing.

    Ie. is something right or wrong, based on the legal framework, legal framework of course made by a conglomerate of well to do random alpha tribal humans (usually male of course.)

    Ie. We are all one (human) species and so we must all, unite with Superhero nihilism and keep us "the collective, horde" as what is greatest for the (borg) collective.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Might be better in philosophy fora than politics
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. RainbowSingularity Registered Senior Member

    homo-erotic socialist singularity aside...
    i think your giving the Borg a bit of a bad rep.

    as long as you do as i say everyone will be happy and they wont hate you.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    An anthropocentric POV falling out of a denial of objective or non-human sources for _X_? Is that the proposal?

    Julian Baggini: The phrase "man is the measure of all things" looks like the zenith of arrogance. Are we really so important that everything that exists has to be measured against our scales, our values and our judgment? But this is not the only way to understand our roles as the cosmic measurers. Rather than assuming importance for humanity, we should instead start by accepting our helplessness. We are the measure of all things simply because we are unable to access any better yardstick. We do not have access to the mind of the deity and nor can we adopt a god's eye view for ourselves. We are condemned to see the world only from a human perspective. Man is not therefore the measure of all things because of arrogance, but because there is no alternative. Even the religious should agree. For when they decide a religion offers the true guide to life, it is the overgrown chimpanzee, not God, who has to choose that it is the right road to follow.

  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    An example from American history:

    Legal frameworks are products of their circumstance; the American legal framework, for instance, is a deliberate retort to the British legal framework, and suits very well as such, but runs into difficulty in other application, as it was never really intended to do everything people expect.

    More directly, it was a fine retort from a bunch of second sons tired of paying homage to a king, but what they really, really wanted was to be kings; we've spent the intervening years, all 242 of them, demonstrating the American Usurpation in lieu of a Revolution. In the end, our society made a lot of promises, but when it came time to deliver, we have perpetually sought to renege because, let's face it, all that talk about Liberty and Justice for all was actually reserved to white men with enough money to own slaves. Indeed, in the twenty-first century, desperate supremacists in the United States will refer to our society's Anglican heritage. History reminds that successful revolutions against state tend toward usurpation instead of revolutionary reform, such that the average citizen might say something familiar about the new boss being like the old.

    Part of the American response to its own propositon of Liberty and Justice for all has involved turning the basic idea of a legal, constitutional, or societal framework inside-out in order that we might forestall such outcomes. We actually have constitutional amendments that were built this way, both (A) depending on who you ask, and (B) in effect. In recent years, this dereliction of the American Promise has become so craven that some really are trying to turn legal frameworks on their heads.

    Consider ontology, which considers what it means to be, and how the various aspects therein are related. For our purposes, we can consider that ontology precedes law. In an if/then formulation describing function and purpose of a law, ontology is counted as an if. To wit: If circumstance A, then law B. What we Americans have decided is to legislate ontology, so that the formulat goes: If circumstance A, then preclude B, thus legislate C to redefine A in order to not only permit but actually demand B.

    Here is an illustrating example: In recent years, some American conservative advocates have pushed an idea of "personhood" as a lagislative matter. This comes down to arguments about Amendment XIV and its famous Equal Protection Clause requiring the states to afford people equal protection under the law. The idea is to create a personhood challenge, that to allow certain people certain freedom inherently violates the rights of other certain people; the method is to legislate who gets to be a person, but this is so narrowly and obsessively focused, the entire argument actually rests not on the legislation of a personhood assertion, but the generally tacit and occasionally explicit presupposition that the challenged class does not, in fact, hold personhood. It is quite literally legislative dehumanization for the sake of supremacism. And I can tell you this: I discussed this issue with stakeholders once upon a time, and in over a year, something like sixteen months, nobody invested in the personhood argument could acknowledge the personhood they were legislating against. The effect is that they attempted to legislate the ontology from which their desired legislation would derive.​

    That laws are circulated to reflect within their own framework is a truism; less apparent is the vector such statements travel, because as you might be aware, some tyrants can institute and cancel laws at will, and in other societies there are tests of legislative propriety, such as the American question of constitutionality. Within these parameters, it is much more difficult to resolve precisely what the laws reflect about the framework. For instance, the personhood propositions I referred to reflected more about sponsors and supporters; institutionally, though, there are very definitive clues about the framework. The American constitutional framework is dynamic and flexible despite its sponsors and supporters; where we run into trouble is in presuppositions. Think of it this way, historically speaking, "Liberty and Justice for All" is subject, in application, to particular definitions, namely what we mean by "Liberty", "Justice", and "All". Americans have a hard enough time with the first two, and that might be for the fact of refusing to let the latter simply mean what it otherwise means. Chatter you might hear about angry White Male Christians has to do with this; there are a lot of Americans who would dispute that "All" includes women, people of color, homosexuals, or, when we survey the general effect, anyone not white, male, and Christian. And even then, they still fight among themselves, which in turn reflects Christian history and framework.

    You pose an interesting framework of its own, to be certain, but its antisociality becomes disruptive and potentially preclusive.

    1) Nihilism, in practice, has a nullifying or negating effect, but that is a downstream, latter-gen result. Its defining aspects occur at an intersection of relativity and futility. Argumentatively, nihilism is generally coupled, and usually tacitly, with observation of or relationship with anomie. At the point of your definition, there are countless presuppositions in effect; these need to be accounted for in some way.

    2) The conglomorate of alphas is not random. Consider, for instance, the end of the Frelinghuysen dynasty; while they haven't always been in Congress, the colloquial expression is that the retirement of Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ11) will mark the first break in the family's relationship with the American government since before there was an American government; someone, somewhere in the family has apparently been in public service at any given time, throughout, or so goes the scuttlebutt, and there is no apparent scion stepping up at this time. The family is worth a lot of money, has major P&G investments, and there is even a township in the Garden State bearing their name. There is a reason why this chatter of traditional federal service in the family is attached to wealth and interest, that this isn't a story starting with a poor Irish woman crossing the ocean for indenture. The larger point is that alphas are and do as they will, but it's not random; an insistent disconnection 'twixt what you see will distort the vista rather quite dramatically and exponentially more quickly. Often the gap is largely natural; the difference between bridge construction and dredging an abyss ought to be apparent.

    3) The disconnection from, or absence of history in your telling is also apparent in your consideration of "Mental Nihilism", which concept is, in turn, a result of nihilism, a particular cultivar, as such. The first and second degrees of "world", as such, are not concepts utterly lost, or anything like that, but, rather, the absence of history, which sketches an approximate historical pedigree or philosophical taxonomy°, leaves others uncertain quite how to interpret the concept. One can, for instance, suggest a weirdly recursive aspect; our separation of "world" from nature itself is not unimportant, but the relativist discarding of frameworks emerges, historically, from not so much rejection or willful erasure of, but, rather, persistent failure to recognize the mere fact of differentiation. We can bounce these questions, similarly, around frameworks political and theological, which is probably more important than I am giving credit in the moment, because, historically speaking, I can follow a pathway to human being as Prime Mover, as such, because I have seen various iterations of it in the society around me. In that context, I can easily note human history of aspiring to godhood, but whether that has anything to do with whatever you refer to is its own question°°. And others are left to similarly grasp after your meaning.

    4) Speaking of aspiring to godhood, say what we will about evolution°°°, but the codified literary record, and our historical record, of Original Sin sits ensconced near the heart of the fear and judgment by which we (ahem!) appear to blindly reject or erase differentiation. In any case, Original Sin also perches on your shoulder: Humanity is a social species, yet "borg" is your consideration of collectivity? Something about antisociality and preclusion goes here.​



    ° Perdurabo↱ reminds, "Now and again Travellers cross the desert; they come from the Great Sea, and to the Great Sea they go. As they go they spill water; one day they will irrigate the desert, till it flower."

    °° Or, as Perdurabo↱ reminds, "Nor did He mean what He said."

    °°° There isn't a good Lie for this one, but still, Perdurabo↱ reminds↱ it is easy to simultaneously have a point and think too much of oneself.​

    Perdurabo, Fr. The Book of Lies: Liber CCCXXXIII. 1912. 8 June 2018.
  9. TheFrogger Registered Member

    "The Law," IS ab-solute, not set by man. It is wrong to kill because the victim cannot return the crime. Thus the C.P.S. (Crown Prosecution Service) press charges because the victim is unable to do so. Murder would otherwise be considered a victimless crime.

Share This Page