GENIUS FORUMS

Millipodium wrote:

You're calling me a vandal. That's a personal attack, not a fact.

False. See evidence below.

You couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper sack, mental midget.

How does this comment not vandalize the thread. How are most of your posts not vandalizing this forum?

You are a troll. For what reasons are you here? Other than to vent your anger (at yourself, no doubt) and disparage others?

Do you ever ask? No, you tell. Do you ever reflect? Apparently not. You spout. You scrawl emotionally on the walls with your spray paint. You spray like a dog to mark your reality: I was here, I matter.

Carl G wrote:Millipodium wrote:

You're calling me a vandal. That's a personal attack, not a fact.

False. See evidence below.

You couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper sack, mental midget.

How does this comment not vandalize the thread. How are most of your posts not vandalizing this forum?

You are a troll. For what reasons are you here? Other than to vent your anger (at yourself, no doubt) and disparage others?

Do you ever ask? No, you tell. Do you ever reflect? Apparently not. You spout. You scrawl emotionally on the walls with your spray paint. You spray like a dog to mark your reality: I was here, I matter.

My opinions are not vandalism. In fact, they're so accurate you can't stand it. Most of you on here are average intellects who have seized upon nihilism as the answer to everything. It's a dangerous, psychopathic substitute. Plus, you specifically are a huge wuss.

ni·hil·ism (nī'ə-lĭz'əm, nē'-) Pronunciation Key
n.
Philosophy
An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.
also Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination.
Psychiatry A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one's mind, body, or self does not exist.

I'm curious: does anyone here consider themselves to be a nihilist, in any of the senses millipodium states above?

DHodges wrote:I'm curious: does anyone here consider themselves to be a nihilist, in any of the senses millipodium states above?

It doesn't matter what you consider. The definition is accurate and descriptive of most here. In fact, you're proving my point by implying that the accuracy of words and their meanings is subjective.

DHodges wrote:I'm curious: does anyone here consider themselves to be a nihilist, in any of the senses millipodium states above?

millipodium wrote:An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.

It stands to reason that a nihilist might not believe in nihilism.
.

OR that an elitist snob may not like accurate descriptions of himself.

millipodium wrote:OR that an elitist snob may not like accurate descriptions of himself.

In that case, he would be an elitist, not a nihilist.

millipodium wrote:

DHodges wrote:I'm curious: does anyone here consider themselves to be a nihilist, in any of the senses millipodium states above?

It doesn't matter what you consider. The definition is accurate and descriptive of most here. In fact, you're proving my point by implying that the accuracy of words and their meanings is subjective.

I didn't mean to imply any such thing. I was just curious if there was anyone here thought of themselves as a nihilist.

Surely there must be people who think of themselves as nihilists, just as there are people who self-identify as anarchists, atheists, solipsists and so on.

Judging from the reaction and argumentativeness I'd say no. Wouldn't you? In fact, most seem to hate the accuracy of the label.

No, what I suspect people hate is the moralistic insipidity you bring to your use of it.

Dan Rowden wrote:No, what I suspect people hate is the moralistic insipidity you bring to your use of it.

Go on dan. I'm using it perfectly accurately. It describes most here. Why do you object to effective language?

I would ban the little cretin.

millipodium,

In some senses of the term I think that almost everyone at this board could fairly be called a nihilist, but in such senses of the term, I find that to be a good thing. In other senses of the term, I find it to be an inaccurate characterization. Calling folks nihilists really doesn't make a point. The word in itself is somewhat vague, and can be dismissed as meaningless without further context. If you mean to demonstrate that most folks at this board are nihilistic, and that such is a bad thing, you're going to have to present more in the way of argument. Otherwise your just slinging empty insults. Ad hominem arguments are totally lame, and you'd have to be lame to use them.

millipodium wrote:In fact, you're proving my point by implying that the accuracy of words and their meanings is subjective.

The meaning of a word depends on how you use it. Where else could meaning reside?

Dictionary,

An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.

"The world is not nothing whatsoever." -David Quinn

A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.

I know that all events have a cause, that A=A, and that a person can justify any belief based on a single contradiction. I am communicating these beliefs to you now.

Any value system that does not respect truth is worthless, but it must be based on something. How could it not be based on anything? That doesn't make any sense; even a random set of values is based on whatever principle was used to select them (a roll of the dice, etc.).

Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.

If all previous theories of morality or religious belief were shown to have no respect for truth, or were internally contradictory, I would be more than willing to destroy them all. Why? Because, if that was the case, all distinctions made within that belief system are meaningless in relation to the normative values I've placed within my ethical system (just as I don't need to distinguish between a Ford and a Chevy when I don't plan on ever having anything to do with pick-up trucks).

I do see a distinction between Buddhism and Christianity. However, they're both insipid, and I see no reason to worry my pretty little mind about either.

The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.

That would be a stupid belief for me to hold, since I know absolutely nothing about sociology or politics. For all I know, the institutions we have might be perfectly suitable for the type of animals we are.

A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination.

Why did you include this in the list of definitions? It's laughable. We're a forum of early 21st century geeks that believe in reason and debate.

A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one's mind, body, or self does not exist.

Some people here are mentally ill. Since I'm not a psychiatrist, I'm not qualified to judge anyone as suffering from this ailment (just as, not being a doctor, I can't tell if someone has low blood sugar).

DHodges,

I'm curious: does anyone here consider themselves to be a nihilist, in any of the senses millipodium states above?

Not in any of the definitions present in that dictionary entry. I'm a nihilist if one only takes the word to represent the lack of belief in an essential meaning to things. Although, that's hardly how the word is generally used. I usually only use the term to represent someone who dwells on said lack of meaning in a woe-is-me sort of way. Existential freedom should be taken as liberating, rather then disheartening. Or so I tend to think.

Your penultimate sentence expresses something the French Existentialists failed to see, in my view. Milli's idea that this board expresses what he thinks nihilism to be is just a political/moral stunt on his part. It is at best, shallow, at worst, contemptuous of reason. It's been shown to him that the content of his definition doesn't apply here, but he just doesn't get it. That's understandable. What is annoying is that he actually doesn't want to understand it. He's like the Pope crapping on about Buddhism. Total ignorance.

Dan Rowden wrote:Your penultimate sentence expresses something the French Existentialists failed to see, in my view. Milli's idea that this board expresses what he thinks nihilism to be is just a political/moral stunt on his part. It is at best, shallow, at worst, contemptuous of reason. It's been shown to him that the content of his definition doesn't apply here, but he just doesn't get it. That's understandable. What is annoying is that he actually doesn't want to understand it. He's like the Pope crapping on about Buddhism. Total ignorance.

The word is accurate dan. Your compatriot is relying on a folk definition and is objecting on that basis. He agreed the dictionary definition applies. Most on this board are ultimately destructive of reason, despite thinking they're ultimately reasonable. Your hostility proves I'm right. You like to think your mundane nihilism is something unique, when it just isn't. So come on deep thinker, call me more names.

The various definitions of nihilism:

An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.

One of the philosophers referenced pretty often here is Nagarjuna. His "Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way" offers a way between the two extremes of nihilism (denying existence entirely) and reificationism (inherent existence).

The rejection of inherent existence can look like nihilism to those that believe in inherent existence, because they have not seen that there is a middle way; it looks like an either/or proposition. But the Middle Way is most definitely a rejection of nihilism.

A doctrine holding that all values are baseless

This seems like cultural relativism. Particular cultures have particular values, and values do not have an objective basis, but are based on the particular situation a culture finds itself in, and possibly on human nature, as well. (People usually have no problem with this idea when it comes to cultures other than their won, but often have a blind spot there.)

Some people do take that idea as a way to think that they are "beyond" values. But this is usually (IME) done naively, as an excuse to reject some particular value, rather than values in general.

I don't see that as an argument for not having values, but as an argument for looking for values that are not arbitrary or situational - for instance, valuing truth.

and that nothing can be known or communicated.

What can you say to that? Seems blatantly self-contradictory.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:

Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.

If all previous theories of morality or religious belief were shown to have no respect for truth, or were internally contradictory, I would be more than willing to destroy them all.

This seems like a part that might have some meat to it. You might find yourself in a place that has no worthwhile values or beliefs, and you need to start from the ground up. Should you not be open to questioning all established values? If your parents are cannibals, should you unquestioningly go along with that, just because it it a pre-existing value? Why should something merely being around previously give it any moral legitimacy?

The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.

That would be a stupid belief for me to hold, since I know absolutely nothing about sociology or politics. For all I know, the institutions we have might be perfectly suitable for the type of animals we are.

I might advocate the destruction of some particular institutions that, in my opinion, cause more harm than good. I don't think that makes me a nihilist, though. And I don't call for the overthrow of anything through the use of force, which seems to be implied in the political definition. (Politically, I think of nihilism as an extreme, militant form of anarchism.)

This also seems to be a value judgement about particular institutions in existence at some particular place and time - not a philosophical position. I don't know much about 19th century Russia - maybe it really was that screwed up.

The same applies to the religious question - I don't advocate destroying religious faith or belief by force. I would advocate reason, where religion advocates unquestioning acceptance ("faith").

millipodium wrote:The word is accurate dan.

Hard to say, since you haven't specified which of the four or five senses of the word you are using.... although I'm pretty sure you aren't referring to 19th century Russia, so much.

Milli, could this definition be more what you have in mind?

1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths

--

DHodges wrote:The various definitions of nihilism:

An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.

One of the philosophers referenced pretty often here is Nagarjuna. His "Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way" offers a way between the two extremes of nihilism (denying existence entirely) and reificationism (inherent existence).

The rejection of inherent existence can look like nihilism to those that believe in inherent existence, because they have not seen that there is a middle way; it looks like an either/or proposition. But the Middle Way is most definitely a rejection of nihilism.

A doctrine holding that all values are baseless

This seems like cultural relativism. Particular cultures have particular values, and values do not have an objective basis, but are based on the particular situation a culture finds itself in, and possibly on human nature, as well. (People usually have no problem with this idea when it comes to cultures other than their won, but often have a blind spot there.)

Some people do take that idea as a way to think that they are "beyond" values. But this is usually (IME) done naively, as an excuse to reject some particular value, rather than values in general.

I don't see that as an argument for not having values, but as an argument for looking for values that are not arbitrary or situational - for instance, valuing truth.

and that nothing can be known or communicated.

What can you say to that? Seems blatantly self-contradictory.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:

Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.

If all previous theories of morality or religious belief were shown to have no respect for truth, or were internally contradictory, I would be more than willing to destroy them all.

This seems like a part that might have some meat to it. You might find yourself in a place that has no worthwhile values or beliefs, and you need to start from the ground up. Should you not be open to questioning all established values? If your parents are cannibals, should you unquestioningly go along with that, just because it it a pre-existing value? Why should something merely being around previously give it any moral legitimacy?

The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.

That would be a stupid belief for me to hold, since I know absolutely nothing about sociology or politics. For all I know, the institutions we have might be perfectly suitable for the type of animals we are.

I might advocate the destruction of some particular institutions that, in my opinion, cause more harm than good. I don't think that makes me a nihilist, though. And I don't call for the overthrow of anything through the use of force, which seems to be implied in the political definition. (Politically, I think of nihilism as an extreme, militant form of anarchism.)

This also seems to be a value judgement about particular institutions in existence at some particular place and time - not a philosophical position. I don't know much about 19th century Russia - maybe it really was that screwed up.

The same applies to the religious question - I don't advocate destroying religious faith or belief by force. I would advocate reason, where religion advocates unquestioning acceptance ("faith").

millipodium wrote:The word is accurate dan.

Hard to say, since you haven't specified which of the four or five senses of the word you are using.... although I'm pretty sure you aren't referring to 19th century Russia, so much.

Milli, could this definition be more what you have in mind?

1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths

--

You're just arguing that nihilism is "the truth", not that i'm misusing the term, or that it's not accurately descriptive of most here.

milli wrote: Your hostility proves I'm right.

What about the hostility that you consistently show toward most people on this forum?

Does that prove the objects of your angsty attacks are right?

The comments you succumb to saying are sometimes hard to believe.

milli,

You're just arguing that nihilism is "the truth", not that i'm misusing the term, or that it's not accurately descriptive of most here.

My argument was that nihilism does not apply to me. I don't know enough about anyone else's beliefs to speak for them. If nihilism applies to most here, then you should have no problem making a list of people who are through-and-through nihilists, and one belief that they clearly hold that makes them so.

I'll start you off with a check-list of whatever names come to mind (sorry to anyone I forget):
Cory: nihilist or not? + one piece of evidence
Ryan: same question
Quinn:
Hodges:
Dan:
Kevin:
Elizabeth:
Steven:
Leyla:
Kelly:
Tomas:
&c:

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:milli,

You're just arguing that nihilism is "the truth", not that i'm misusing the term, or that it's not accurately descriptive of most here.

My argument was that nihilism does not apply to me. I don't know enough about anyone else's beliefs to speak for them. If nihilism applies to most here, then you should have no problem making a list of people who are through-and-through nihilists, and one belief that they clearly hold that makes them so.

I'll start you off with a check-list of whatever names come to mind (sorry to anyone I forget):
Cory: nihilist or not? + one piece of evidence
Ryan: same question
Quinn:
Hodges:
Dan:
Kevin:
Elizabeth:
Steven:
Leyla:
Kelly:
Tomas:
&c:

No. I won't do your makework project. It is the prevailing meme.

It has to prevail in the minds of specific people, or else it may as well not exist at all. My "makework project" is a concerted attempt to get you to attack specific people's shortcomings, instead of some foul vapour you believe is permeating the air.

If you say "most people here are nihilists", that means that more than 50% of the people here have a specific mindset. Since there are so few of us here, you should easily be able to name them, and then allow each to defend himself in turn. If you aren't willing to do such a simple task, then I have no reason to believe you.

I know for a fact that I'm not a nihilist by your definition: by itself, that means that there are at least two people who are. Who are they?