Hypermodernity as a superior avenue to nihilism than Traditionalism

[Cargést]

There is nothing of value here, and value is what needs to be brought into existence by the process of Active Nihilism.

Active Nihilism cannot be undertaken by an individual who considers that reality is subjective, as the objective reality is the guide by which new understanding is gained.

Your suggestions reek of the novelty-seeking ways of the modern man, which one should really guess, given the use of the term "hypermodernity".

I think you need, severely, to understand that you are, on the grand scale of things, wholly infinitesimal in this universe.  You can choose a course of individualism, hedonism, and enjoyment of ephemerons, but the majority of us derive our pleasure from the permanence of our creations.  Consistently it is shown that the former is an unnatural way of being, while the latter is wholly instinctive.  My own journey through Active Nihilism has caused me to realise that the greatest joy comes when we are able to act as closely to our fundamental nature(s) as we can.

Surely, upon developing something to the point where it no longer works, you must go back and try again to develop it further?

[Tzadikim]

There is nothing of value here, and value is what needs to be brought into existence by the process of Active Nihilism.

To the contrary: active nihilism destroys values, and rightfully so.

Active Nihilism cannot be undertaken by an individual who considers that reality is subjective, as the objective reality is the guide by which new understanding is gained.

I never said that reality is subjective. I said that reality is one. The 'subjective' consciousness of the individual and the 'objective' existence of the whole are indivisible. Nietzsche taught us this twelve decades ago when he vanquished the nostrums of Kantian dualism.

At long last, let us contrast the very different manner in which we conceive the problem of error and appearance. (I say "we" for politeness' sake.) In the past, alteration, change, any becoming at all, were taken as proof of mere appearance, as an indication that there must be something which led us astray. Today, in contrast, precisely insofar as the prejudice of reason forces us to posit unity, identity, permanence, substance, cause, thinghood, being, we see ourselves somehow caught in error, compelled into error — so certain are we, on the basis of rigorous examination, that this is where the error lies.

- Twilight of the Idols, '"Reason" in Philosophy' 5

The ANUS consensus on the subject - that there is a transcendental reality 'beyond', 'above' and 'better' than that of appearance - is a de-theologized variant of Paul's declamations against "the world, the flesh and the Devil", and nothing more.

Your suggestions reek of the novelty-seeking ways of the modern man, which one should really guess, given the use of the term "hypermodernity".

And yours stink of Quasimodo retreating ever further into the cathedral spires.

I think you need, severely, to understand that you are, on the grand scale of things, wholly infinitesimal in this universe.  You can choose a course of individualism, hedonism, and enjoyment of ephemerons, but the majority of us derive our pleasure from the permanence of our creations.  Consistently it is shown that the former is an unnatural way of being, while the latter is wholly instinctive.  My own journey through Active Nihilism has caused me to realise that the greatest joy comes when we are able to act as closely to our fundamental nature(s) as we can.

Certainly. And my fundamental nature is to recognize my smallness and, in compensation, magnify myself above the whole. "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also on the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north."

This is the ultimate and final form of active nihilism: the realization of Stirner's "creative nothing".

Surely, upon developing something to the point where it no longer works, you must go back and try again to develop it further?

Why not? That is, after all, what the Traditionalists want to do with a beautified and wholly artificial vision of European feudalism. I simply admit that I am not pretentious enough to pretend that feudalism was more desirable than modernity.

[03-04]

@Tzadikim -I can appreciate what you see in a hypermodern philosophy. A reliable and effective method of integrating will and reality, no? Living up to ones full potential and all that? But is this not just social darwinism, with a strong emphasis on personal discipline?

I think that hypermodernisms biggest flaw lies in its choice of words. Using the individual as a symbol of power is not very smart, because it leaves the philosophy vulnerable to retarded interpretations. Praising extreme individualism doesn't exactly scare off the idiots.

[Athanasius contra mundum]

There is nothing of value here, and value is what needs to be brought into existence by the process of Active Nihilism.

To the contrary: active nihilism destroys values, and rightfully so.

Active Nihilism cannot be undertaken by an individual who considers that reality is subjective, as the objective reality is the guide by which new understanding is gained.

I never said that reality is subjective. I said that reality is one. The 'subjective' consciousness of the individual and the 'objective' existence of the whole are indivisible. Nietzsche taught us this twelve decades ago when he vanquished the nostrums of Kantian dualism.

At long last, let us contrast the very different manner in which we conceive the problem of error and appearance. (I say "we" for politeness' sake.) In the past, alteration, change, any becoming at all, were taken as proof of mere appearance, as an indication that there must be something which led us astray. Today, in contrast, precisely insofar as the prejudice of reason forces us to posit unity, identity, permanence, substance, cause, thinghood, being, we see ourselves somehow caught in error, compelled into error — so certain are we, on the basis of rigorous examination, that this is where the error lies.

- Twilight of the Idols, '"Reason" in Philosophy' 5

The ANUS consensus on the subject - that there is a transcendental reality 'beyond', 'above' and 'better' than that of appearance - is a de-theologized variant of Paul's declamations against "the world, the flesh and the Devil", and nothing more.

Your suggestions reek of the novelty-seeking ways of the modern man, which one should really guess, given the use of the term "hypermodernity".

And yours stink of Quasimodo retreating ever further into the cathedral spires.

I think you need, severely, to understand that you are, on the grand scale of things, wholly infinitesimal in this universe.  You can choose a course of individualism, hedonism, and enjoyment of ephemerons, but the majority of us derive our pleasure from the permanence of our creations.  Consistently it is shown that the former is an unnatural way of being, while the latter is wholly instinctive.  My own journey through Active Nihilism has caused me to realise that the greatest joy comes when we are able to act as closely to our fundamental nature(s) as we can.

Certainly. And my fundamental nature is to recognize my smallness and, in compensation, magnify myself above the whole. "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also on the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north."

This is the ultimate and final form of active nihilism: the realization of Stirner's "creative nothing".

Surely, upon developing something to the point where it no longer works, you must go back and try again to develop it further?

Why not? That is, after all, what the Traditionalists want to do with a beautified and wholly artificial vision of European feudalism. I simply admit that I am not pretentious enough to pretend that feudalism was more desirable than modernity.

It seems to me that you've decided that the ANUS website is certain things, and that you are the antithesis of these certain things, so as to engage in some sort of internet crusade against these certain things that I'm sure the actual writers of the website could probably care less about, as it doesn't really affect their daily lives.

[Cargést]

Tzadikim, my "Traditionalism" brings me further in line with Antique and Classical Greek values than it does with anything of Medieval Europe.  All that Traditionalism suggests is that we had better ways of doing things in the past, and we should look to those ways of doing things for answers as to what to do to solve the problems we have right now, rather than continue in our fallacious fashions, destroying as we go.

You've also seriously misinterpreted Active Nihilism.  I mean, completely, and entirely.  You've managed to confuse Active and Passive Nihilism.  Nietzsche was not the enemy of value, he was the strongest advocate.  He lamented the rise of "nihilism", because people are generally only capable of "passive nihilism", which is the destruction of all value and the subsequent wallowing in said destruction, with no further goals.  This is what you seem to be preaching, and the man who you believe supports you is in absolute defiance of your views.  Active Nihilism is always a means to an end, an end which is brought about by bringing the individual into accordance with his surroundings.  Here's an interesting quotation about it from someone's analysis of Nietzsche's notes:

Active nihilism obviously is not an end, however. It merely opens the stage for the beginning of a revaluation of values. It opens the stage for the will to take power and assert itself. Nihilism is the precursor to revaluation, it does not replace values, it only tears them away. It functions as an essential transition, and must be understood as a means and not an end.

A formula cannot take an input and produce a null result unless that input is null itself.  Active Nihilism cannot destroy value without building a new value system.

[Athanasius contra mundum]

Tzadikim, my "Traditionalism" brings me further in line with Antique and Classical Greek values than it does with anything of Medieval Europe.  All that Traditionalism suggests is that we had better ways of doing things in the past, and we should look to those ways of doing things for answers as to what to do to solve the problems we have right now, rather than continue in our fallacious fashions, destroying as we go.

You've also seriously misinterpreted Active Nihilism.  I mean, completely, and entirely.  You've managed to confuse Active and Passive Nihilism.  Nietzsche was not the enemy of value, he was the strongest advocate.  He lamented the rise of "nihilism", because people are generally only capable of "passive nihilism", which is the destruction of all value and the subsequent wallowing in said destruction, with no further goals.  This is what you seem to be preaching, and the man who you believe supports you is in absolute defiance of your views.  Active Nihilism is always a means to an end, an end which is brought about by bringing the individual into accordance with his surroundings.  Here's an interesting quotation about it from someone's analysis of Nietzsche's notes:

Active nihilism obviously is not an end, however. It merely opens the stage for the beginning of a revaluation of values. It opens the stage for the will to take power and assert itself. Nihilism is the precursor to revaluation, it does not replace values, it only tears them away. It functions as an essential transition, and must be understood as a means and not an end.

A formula cannot take an input and produce a null result unless that input is null itself.  Active Nihilism cannot destroy value without building a new value system.

You're wrong Cargest, because your points wouldn't allow me to seem like a genius for making up a word and portraying it as a revolutionary philosophy.

[Cargést]

Bugger, I hadn't thought of that.  Back to the drawing board!

[JewishPhysics]

I just noticed something that should have been pointed out right from the start.  The title of this thread is:

Hypermodernity as a superior avenue to nihilism than Traditionalism

Traditionalism isn't an avenue to Nihilism, it's the other way around.  Nihilism leads one to Traditionalism.  No wonder this whole thing is fucked up.  He's got everything backwards.

[Cargést]

Good catch.  I wouldn't necessarily state that Nihilism leads one to Traditionalism, although it certainly can.  What it can't do, however, is lead one to this "hypermodernity" thing, which seems rather to spit in the face of Nietzsche's proposals.

[indjaseemun]

You know, I think people here who read my posts must be sick already of me declaring my ignorance on every topic, but here it goes: I don't know much about Traditionalism but from what I know, it's not bad. But I can't help but agree with this poster, because my country (Brasil) is too fucked up to establish Traditionalism. I understand countries that have a racial homogeneity and traditions to want to establish what worked in questions of philosophical traditionalism, but my country is just too fucked. Hence, I can't have the luxury of thinking too "sacredly" (I understand I may becompletely misunderstanding Tradition in my statements).

As long as there is eugenics for, in the first place, character, then intelligence, then physical/strenght, then beauty, a stop to poverty, a stop to crime trought oppression and improvements in education and the religious experience (I believe the "religious experience" is beneficial to countries, so if people want to practice their crazy religions and new age stuff but get the religious feeling, OK by me), and reduction of population in order to preserve the natural landscapes.

As long as this is secured, I don't care for the rest.