Hells Headbangers Restocks Nihilism

nihiilsm brett stevens

Brett Steven’s Nihilism: A Philosophy Based In Nothingness And Eternity sold out quickly at Hells Headbangers’ metal distro so Hells Headbangers has just restocked it! You know you want it hard. Now you can get it hard fast again with DHL international shipping! Believe in nothing and take it like man! How do you expect to reach emptiness without mentally climaxing into the vortex? Are you man enough?

Tags: , , , ,

124 thoughts on “Hells Headbangers Restocks Nihilism

  1. *cringe* says:

    “Believe in nothing and take it like man! How do you expect to reach emptiness without mentally climaxing into the vortex? Are you man enough?”

    1. Nathan Metric says:

      3 things I noticed about the author Daniel
      1)He thinks you should believe in nothing.
      2)He thinks you should reach the state of emptiness
      3)He thinks you should act manly.

      Very confusing…

      1. Daniel.

        I`d like you to meet me 1 on 1 bare naked , fists clenched on our cocks! Pure frot armageddon !!

        R U

        MAN

        ENUFF OR WHAT DANNY?

  2. penisfingers says:

    could this convert my hippie new age coffee shop philosophy professor into an MRA nazi?

  3. Roger says:

    “Nihilism examines the human relationship with philosophical doubt through a series of essays designed to stimulate the ancient knowledge within us of what is right and what is real”

    Why on earth would Nihilism produce the same conclusions about ‘what is right and what is real’ as those arrived at by the Ancients? The ancients were metaphysical existentialists. They held that reality has an objective telos that could be comprehended by human minds. Their morality stemmed from this inherent meaning. Nihilism, or ‘belief in nothing’, on the other hand, is obviously not an example of metaphysical essentialism.

    “the philosophy of nihilism approaches thought at its most basic level and highest degree of abstraction”

    ?

    “It escapes the bias of human perspective”

    Right. So Brett Stevens is some God who can grasp reality without having his own perspective on it. Good one.

    “a new level of critical thinking”

    Hear that Plato? Aristotle? Descartes? Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke? Hume? Nietzsche? Russell, Wittgenstein, Quine? You guys aren’t needed anymore.

    “the philosophy itself encourages a consequentialist, reality-based outlook that forms the basis for moral choice”

    Belief in nothing; in no inherent meaning independent of human perspective, actually leads to the belief that the Good is what causes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Makes sense!

    1. Roger says:

      My apologies. The Ancients were metaphysical ESSENTIALISTS, not existentialists!

    2. actually leads to the belief that the Good is what causes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

      No, that is not where it leads. This may help:

      http://www.amerika.org/meta/nihilism-advances-slowly-toward-global-domination/

      1. Roger says:

        My apologies for not being clearer: my point was that a belief in nothing cannot lead, not by reason anyway, to the belief that what is objectively Good are the consequences of actions (as opposed to, say, one’s methods in getting to these consequences).

        Perhaps i’m being too logo-centric. Is that the idea? Or is it rather that when one realizes (correctly) that there are no inherent values to life, one will be more likely, just as a matter of psychological generalization (as opposed to deductive entailment), come to value consequences above all else?

        I could believe this. But then then the question is raised: Which consequences?

        1. my point was that a belief in nothing cannot lead, not by reason anyway, to the belief that what is objectively Good are the consequences of actions (as opposed to, say, one’s methods in getting to these consequences).

          The dichotomy is methods versus consequences, and it seems accurate to me.

          However, here is your error:

          objectively

          If you learn anything from nihilism, let it be this: the term “objectively,” used other than in the vernacular to mean “out there” versus “in here in my head,” is nonsense and rubbish.

          A belief in nothing leads to rejection of the human editorializing and rationalizing, and a focus instead on results. Then the only question is: are these the results which match my abilities and mental state?

          In that, there is a recognition that not only are people not-equal, but that this inequality leads people to care about different things — and by that, they are ranked.

          If that last part rankles you, you have been infected with Crowdism. I do a series of seminars on how to purge Crowdism from your mind, but we hold them out in West Texas and they are not inexpensive. If you are interested, I will ask my business partners if we can do a partial scholarship.

          1. Rainer Weikusat says:


            In that, there is a recognition that not only are people not-equal, but that this inequality leads people to care about different things — and by that, they are ranked.

            If that last part rankles you, you have been infected with Crowdism.

            There’s an old joke, »There are two kinds of people on this planet, the just and the unjust. The just doing the categorization.« and that’s why this rankles me: In theory, every system ever designed was supposed to be a meritocracy, just for wildly different definitions of merit. The practical result is usually nepotism and rise of people whose primary skill is cleverly gaming whatever the system happens to be. Some people are outstanding leaders/ managers. But as they can’t possibly do everything themselves, there’ll be a larger group of seconds in command who are a little less outstanding, overseeing a still larger group of thirds in command who are … and so on, until there’s someone like a 56th in command, a complete idiot, but with the power to refuse entry.

            This is still based on the optimistic assumption that the top tiers at least generally work. In even worse but yet more realistic cases, the court jester becomes lord judge because he knows best how to influence the king favorably.

            1. Some people are outstanding leaders/ managers. But as they can’t possibly do everything themselves

              Hence the tradition approach: roles, and very few layers of management, plus a radical simplification of society to remove unnecessary activity so that all of it can be managed well.

          2. Roger says:

            “In that, there is a recognition that not only are people not-equal, but that this inequality leads people to care about different things — and by that, they are ranked.”

            The idea of ranking people doesn’t rankles me.

            What rankles me is this. If nothing has inherent meaning, then by what scale are you ranking people? It can only be against your own, subjective, scale of what kinds of people are ‘higher’ and what kinds are ‘lower’. And, moreover, different people who have gone through the nihilistic ‘purging’ of herd morality are likely going to have different rank-orderings based on who they are. For instance, Buddhists probably went as close to your nihilism as anyone. Yet they preach compassion! They rank the compassionate one above all others, the universal! Whereas you would, presumably, not rank the compassionate one above others, but instead the ‘warrior’ or some other archetype.

            1. It can only be against your own, subjective, scale of what kinds of people are ‘higher’ and what kinds are ‘lower’.

              Another black pill insight: nothing is subjective. Choices are made on a logical basis filtered through the abilities and inclinations of the individual. Welcome to determinism with limited choice, but choice nonetheless, and the inequality of human beings.

              For instance, Buddhists probably went as close to your nihilism as anyone.

              Yes, and you can find them frequently going to war with Muslims, Communists and other perceived threats.

              1. Roger says:

                “Another black pill insight: nothing is subjective. Choices are made on a logical basis **filtered through the abilities and inclinations of the individual**.”

                So if I want to listen to Eminem, if that is my inclination or goal, and I do everything that is logical in order to achieve my goal of listening to Eminem (say, I turn the CD player on instead of off, I connect the headphones to the headphone jack, etc), then that suddenly turns my goal of listening to Eminem into something objective: something that the fulfills the very goals of the cosmos itself?

                1. Each person does exactly what they are inclined to do. If you want to listen to Eminem, it reflects something of your nature. Let us expand this further: we see two men in fields across the street from one another. One is quite drunk, in an immaculate field, and the other is sober and working hard in a field that is a mess. Investigating further, we find that the drunk man has spent all year maintaining this field, and is currently having some “leisure time,” while the other guy has been watching television all year and is desperately trying to get his field ready for a public showing the next day. What does this tell us? Very little, because it is almost all symbolism, and that means there is an underlying story we need to explore, but each of us will end up at a different level of understanding, with only those who are smart and capable and motivated will have a mostly-accurate perception.

                  1. Roger says:

                    You said nothing is subjective. I don’t understand your response.

                    I don’t understand your position at all now. If nothing is subjective, that means everything is objective. That means my preference for social justice (if i had one) is objective. This means that nihilism is a non-starter.

                    1. “subjective” is a subset of “objective”, as subjects are a kind of object.

                    2. If nothing is subjective, that means everything is objective.

                      The very point of nihilism is that the dichotomy is nonsense and rubbish.

                      People are what they are. Welcome to esotericism.

                    3. Roger is a gay computer says:

                      Nuff said

              2. Roger says:

                Are you seriously denying that rejecting absolute values would lead a massive pluralism of rank-orders for different people? Is your thesis that, if every semi-intelligent person who went through ‘nihilism’, they would see that the unabomber is a higher person than hillary clinton?

                1. I am not sure you are following the argument at all. Nihilism does not create; it reveals. This is the nature of realism. Are you familiar with esotericism at all?

                  1. Roger says:

                    You stated that nihilism will lead to one throwing off the constructions of herd morality, basically.

                    But what makes you think they will adopt a new, post-nihilism, value system, which is in any way what YOU think is the best value system, if the result of throwing off her morality is that “people start to value things according to their nature”.

                    1. Roger says:

                      *their, not her. I really must proof read more.

                    2. Internatio reloaded says:

                      I’m more and more convinced BS is just out of his depth but has learned enough complicated words through Death Metal listening to hide that behind a wall of text well enough to get published.

                    3. Feel free to point out any errors you have encountered.

    3. “Belief in nothing; in no inherent meaning independent of human perspective, actually leads to the belief that the Good is what causes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Makes sense!”

      Perhaps it does to you. It doesn’t to me.

      1. Belief in no value outside of minds, moral or otherwise, logically leads to the rejection of value systems that contradict one’s own nature (such as trying to rationalize why eternal torment for being born in the wrong culture is a good idea), leaving only two options:

        1: No values,
        or 2: Values derived from ones own nature; the same kind of value that makes you avoid suffering and reach for beauty.

        1. Roger says:

          “Belief in no value outside of minds, moral or otherwise, logically leads to the rejection of value systems that contradict one’s own nature”

          I think you might be right. But not in the way you think you are.

          Rejection of value systems that are higher than one’s own preferences leads to embracing one’s nature alright. As an animal who likes sex and shopping and social intrigue.

          It’s called modernity: or the twilight of the idols.

          Remove metaphysical essentialism from the masses and you get a culture which is geared towards the lowest common denominator.

          1. Rejection of value systems that are higher than one’s own preferences leads to embracing one’s nature alright. As an animal who likes sex and shopping and social intrigue.

            You are presupposing an average as a universal nature. This is bad math.

          2. “Rejection of value systems that are higher than one’s own preferences leads to embracing one’s nature alright. As an animal who likes sex and shopping and social intrigue.

            It’s called modernity: or the twilight of the idols.”

            If that is your nature, yes. If you are an animal who likes sex and shopping and social intrigue.
            If it isn’t your nature, no.

            1. Roger says:

              I knew you would say that. But this isn’t about me.

              The problem with it is that Nihilism will lead to mass materialism and hedonism for most people.

              Oh wait we have that now. And, oh wait, we live in an age of nihilism (not in Brett’s ‘esoteric’ sense).

              Could there be a connection?!

              1. In the past, they burned witches and went to church Today, they produce trash and watch TV.
                Both are undesirable. With or without delusions of objective value, the state of humanity has been poor.

                However, the average nature is not all bad. There is some good in many people which can be cultivated, but which is not being cultivated.

              2. The problem with it is that Nihilism will lead to mass materialism and hedonism for most people.

                Everything leads to that. Nihilism states that we do not have to universalize it.

        2. Roger says:

          In other words, why on earth would you think that rejection of a set of values which is ‘against one’s nature’, or the acceptance of a set of values which are consonant with one’s nature, is a good thing?

          1. Depends on one’s nature. Choose by results, and it reveals you.

          2. “In other words, why on earth would you think that rejection of a set of values which is ‘against one’s nature’, or the acceptance of a set of values which are consonant with one’s nature, is a good thing?”

            What an asinine question.
            “Why do you think that living in a way that is good to your nature is a good thing? Why not subject yourself to torment? Why not pour acid on to your brain to become dumber? Why not murder those who you love and destroy what you value?”

            1. Roger says:

              No, don’t be obtuse.

              The alternative to giving into one’s lowest drives is not pain and torment. It might be transcendence.

              1. The alternative to giving into one’s lowest drives is not pain and torment.

                Lowest drives are a product of the human intent-based metric.

            2. Nathan Metric says:

              “Why do you think that living in a way that is good to your nature is a good thing? Why not subject yourself to torment? Why not pour acid on to your brain to become dumber? Why not murder those who you love and destroy what you value?”

              4 things.
              1)You’re equivocating with the word “good” here.
              2)You’re presupposing you actually know what is in your self-interest. How does a nihilist know what is and what is not his self-interest? To a lot of people, morality is not just about figuring out how to achieve virtue it’s also about finding direction in one’s life where there would be no direction otherwise.
              3)Pouring acid on your brain isn’t wrong only because of instinct. It is wrong because truth is the highest virtue and your brain is the tool for aligning yourself with the truth. You are wrong that morality goes against your instincts.
              4)What is “love” to a nihilist anyway?

              1. “No, don’t be obtuse.

                The alternative to giving into one’s lowest drives is not pain and torment. It might be transcendence.”

                Because of what I am, giving in to my lowest drives is not a good way for me to live. I have tried hedonism, and I have tried intellectualism+romanticism toward improvement. I know which one is better.

                “2)You’re presupposing you actually know what is in your self-interest. How does a nihilist know what is and what is not his self-interest?”

                I’m not presupposing it. I base it on observation and analysis. I have predictive models that are supported by evidence.
                Certain actions lead to results that are naturally repugnant to me, and other ones lead to results that are naturally attractive to me.
                Usually, all I have to do is imagine a scenario in my mind and gauge my intellectual and emotional reaction to it.

                “4)What is “love” to a nihilist anyway?”

                Love is intense appreciation of beauty.

                1. Certain actions lead to results that are naturally repugnant to me, and other ones lead to results that are naturally attractive to me.

                  This is consequentialism in its original form: looking at results, not intent/feelings.

                  1. Roger says:

                    “This is consequentialism in its original form: looking at results, not intent/feelings.”

                    You’re still it seeing the glaring, and quite basuc, philosophical/logical objection to your worldview.

                    You say nihilism gets ‘leads’ one (as a matter of logical necessisty, or perhaps just due to a psychological generalisation) to throw off morality (intent/feelings) and look at results.

                    Maybe so. BUT THE RESULTS DO NOT SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. SOME PEOPLE LIKE RESULTS YOU WOULD FIND ABHORRENT.

                    moral: human beings CANNOT STEP OUTSIDE OF FEELS.

                    1. moral: human beings CANNOT STEP OUTSIDE OF FEELS.

                      Human beings vary widely.

                2. Nathan Metric says:

                  “I have tried hedonism, and I have tried intellectualism+romanticism toward improvement. I know which one is better.”

                  That is obvious only to one that values the truth, but do you actually have a reason for valuing the truth? Can you actually explain why truth is better than untruth? If not then I have made my point that a nihilist by definition cannot know their self-interest or to be more precise they cannot assert a preference and explain why they have it.

                  “I’m not presupposing it. I base it on observation and analysis.”

                  Obtaining a more advanced understanding self-interest observation and analysis is only possible if you have a certain apriori understanding of your fundamental self-interest in the first place. For instance, evidence informs me I like Category 2 voltmeters better than Category 4 ones because Category 2 ones are more accurate and more versatile, but that means nothing unless I assume apriori that accuracy is better than inaccuracy. That truth is better that untruth or living a life of pleasure is better than living a life of pain. Such beliefs obviously have nothing to do with evidence.

                  “Love is intense appreciation of beauty.”

                  Which begs the question what is beauty to a nihilist and how does he determine it?

                  1. I’m done.

                    I’ve said the same things over and over, and you keep asking the same questions, which I have answered, over and over.

                  2. Can you actually explain why truth is better than untruth?

                    What is one trying to do when making this determination?

                    If I say the gun is not loaded, and you point it at a friend, is truth better than untruth?

                    We can only look at results.

              2. How does a nihilist know what is and what is not his self-interest?

                By the result that possible actions have achieved in the past.

                1. I agree with you about how to figure out which actions are in your interest (We can also add extrapolation, prediction, imagination, and all other tools for problem solving to it), but I think that he was asking how you know which -results- are in your interest.

                  And the answer to that is simple: By contemplating, and thus knowing yourself.

                  1. And one more thing on the list of methods that I forgot: Abstraction.

                  2. I think that he was asking how you know which -results- are in your interest.

                    It is not so much a question of interest, but will. People can desire things that are not in their self-interest, but appeal for reasons that seem entirely personal but reflect a penetrating understanding of the universe, including beauty and excellence. Not all will choose this, so this cannot be made into a universal, which leads us nihilist radical skeptics to suggest that universalism go the way of the VHS player.

                    1. I think that if one wants to die for a cause, then doing so is in his interest.
                      It merely means that he has other priorities which have transcended his priority to live.

        3. Roger says:

          And finally, I take great issue with the idea that “belief in no value outside of minds, moral or otherwise, **logically** leads to the rejection of value systems that contradict one’s own nature”.

          It might lead thus as a matter of psychological functioning, but that is not a ‘logical’ connection.

          Best get these issues right lest one’s philosophy look like an undergraduate essay.

          1. It might lead thus as a matter of psychological functioning, but that is not a ‘logical’ connection.

            Not correct, because it is a logical extension from the rejection of universalism: if there is no inherent right, one acts according to instinct. Choice is a zero-sum game at this level, and so that means rejection of all other value systems.

          2. “And finally, I take great issue with the idea that “belief in no value outside of minds, moral or otherwise, **logically** leads to the rejection of value systems that contradict one’s own nature”.

            It might lead thus as a matter of psychological functioning, but that is not a ‘logical’ connection.

            Best get these issues right lest one’s philosophy look like an undergraduate essay.”

            It’s logical to go with the only option available. When one’s own innate nature is the only explanation for morality, then that is what one will listen to. Not a god, or another human.
            If there is no objective morality that can override your morality, then you will listen to your own.

            1. Nathan Metric says:

              There is no way to argue for nihilism in a logically consistent manner. Let’s say I think nihilism is nonsense and a nihilist tries to correct me. Either he is trying to correct me because a)Nihilism is the truth and I ought to be reverent to the truth or b)he merely subjectively prefers that I be correct. If A) is the case then he is contradicting himself. He is presupposing the moral significance of the truth. If B) is the case then I have no duty to change my opinion of nihilism since there is nothing morally right about being right and nothing morally wrong about being wrong.

              1. I’m not a complete nihilist. I am only a nihilist with regard to value, moral or otherwise, existing outside of minds.
                This is a position that I can logically argue for.

                1. As for your blabber about value, I’ve already said this many times:

                  There is no universal objective value, there are only the values within your mind.
                  I value the truth, and want to spread it as far and wide as possible. I want the truth to thrive. It is part of my nature to want that, as much as it is part of my nature to avoid torment.

                  If you don’t value what I value, then you do indeed have no reason to obey or listen to me.
                  In extreme cases of this, we would be natural enemies.
                  This is one of the reasons that conflict is unavoidable in the world.

                  1. There is no universal objective value, there are only the values within your mind.

                    Just like there is no such thing as a universal human intelligence; people vary widely, and those at the top see what those below cannot.

                  2. Nathan Metric says:

                    “There is no universal objective value, there are only the values within your mind.”

                    Is this supposed to be a truth claim or something? Am I suppose to respect the truthfulness of this assertion? What you think the truth is some kind of universal objective value or something? This vanilla nihilism of yours is funny.

                    “I value the truth, and want to spread it as far and wide as possible. I want the truth to thrive. It is part of my nature to want that, as much as it is part of my nature to avoid torment.”

                    WHY!!!? Why do you value the truth? Actually you know what let me put the question to you this way…is it possible for you to question truth being a value? Could you logically argue that truth is not a value? Let’s not hover around midway through the darkness of nihilism. Let’s try to get to the very bottom of the pit. Let’s go all the way with this radical skepticism. Why do you care about the truth? See because this concern for this thing called the “truth” is what got you into this pit in the first place.

                    1. Yes, it is a statement. An assertion of truth, that the nature of value is such that it only exists within subjects, not outside of them: An action’s moral value is determined by the mind of the subject. Shit smells bad to humans, but not to flies, because the nature of humans is different from the nature of flies.

                      The universe is perceived by what ever sensors the subject has, and from the stimulus of the universe around it, the subject constructs sights, sounds, smells, as well as moral judgements, aesthetic judgements, and other values.
                      The reason I have values, is for the same reason as everything else: It’s what I am. My brain has a morality function.
                      To ask why I have values, is like asking why wood can burn but metal can only melt, or why broccoli tastes good to me but boiled eggs taste bad.
                      There are physical explanations, but in the end, it is simply part of nature. There is no objective meaning of life, because meaning itself can only be subjective; it can only exist within a subject.
                      Subjects mean things and have intentions. The universe itself doesn’t.

                    2. Nathan Metric says:

                      “Yes, it is a statement. An assertion of truth, that the nature of value is such that it only exists within subjects, not outside of them”

                      And I’m supposed to conclude…..what from this? All value is subjective and that means….what exactly? Am I supposed to change my mind or something?

                      “An action’s moral value is determined by the mind of the subject. Shit smells bad to humans, but not to flies, because the nature of humans is different from the nature of flies.”

                      That is a complete misunderstanding of what morality is. A moral rule =/= a strong opinion. A moral rule is intended to be a universal claim about what you should do. If a preference is not universal why call it “morality”? Morality is nonsense to a nihilist.

                      “The universe is perceived by what ever sensors the subject has, and from the stimulus of the universe around it, the subject constructs sights, sounds, smells, as well as moral judgements, aesthetic judgements, and other values.
                      The reason I have values, is for the same reason as everything else: It’s what I am. My brain has a morality function.”

                      Which translates to “I have no logical reason for valuing the truth” which proves my point that a nihilist cannot actually know their self-interest. Rather they just have a bunch of subjective preferences they can’t justify. How can you know something is in your self-interest if you are not in possession of it? If I were to have a mind control interface attached to my brain that tells me what to do what it tells me to do =/= what my self-interest actually is. Why? Because I am not in possession of it. In order for something to be a SELF-interest it has to be an interest that you actually possess. Not one that is forced on you by an unknown alien force.

                      Now I value the truth as well, but the difference is I actually know why I value the truth. I am in full possession of my interest in the truth. The reason I value the truth is because there is no way to logically argue against the virtue of the truth without either a)exploiting the virtue of the truth (which is a performative contradiction) or b)appealing to a arbitrary preference (which is bad logic).

                    3. A moral rule is intended to be a universal claim about what you should do.

                      This is why nihilists reject it: nothing is universal. That is an artifact of the human need to be liked and to feel safe from others by assuming they are essentially identical to the perceiver.

                2. Nathan Metric says:

                  “I’m not a complete nihilist. I am only a nihilist with regard to value, moral or otherwise, existing outside of minds.
                  This is a position that I can logically argue for.”

                  Oh really? If you believe there is no such thing as an objective value then that means you believe all values are arbitrary. Which means your attempts to correct me are arbitrary. So no actually you CANNOT argue for nihilism in a logically consistent manner. If I have a preference for vanilla ice cream I don’t go around “correcting” people for having preferences for ice cream that are different than mine. That would be utterly illogical and insane.

                  Oh are you going to say it doesn’t matter if we act in an arbitrary manner? We have no choice you say? Well then it shouldn’t matter to you in the slightest whether I act in an arbitrary manner or hold arbitrary beliefs. As far as a can tell a nihilist criticizing an absolutist for holding what they think are “arbitrary” beliefs is an act of hypocrisy since they believe all values are arbitrary to begin with. All values are arbitrary >>> all thoughts are arbitrary >>> all actions are arbitrary.

                  1. I argue for my position in the hopes that others who have the same fundamental nature as me, but who haven’t realized what I have realized, will wake up and blossom. That their seed will grow up in to a tree, as happened to me.

                    If their nature is fundamentally opposed to mine, and their tree can never be like my tree, then we are natural enemies.
                    Such people I try to fight against, physically if they threaten me physically, or intellectually with ideas if they propagate their (hostile to mine) ideas, in an attempt to spread my ideas to other minds, rather than his ideas.

                    1. I also argue for ideas and consider the ideas of others so that my own tree can continue to grow, to approach its apex potential.

                    2. I don’t understand why this is so hard for you to understand.

                      I will try to summarize my position.

                      There is no objective value, but there is subjective value. What is good can be derived from one’s own nature, like what is beautiful or ugly, what is painful and what is pleasurable, what is tasty and what is repugnant.
                      That is what values are; a part of one’s nature. No more and no less.

                      People who have opposing incompatible values are natural enemies.

                    3. That is what values are; a part of one’s nature. No more and no less.

                      This quoted passage says it well. With that realization, some things die: eusociality, equality, pacifism, altruism, universalism, rationalism.

                      Exterminate all rational thought!

                    4. Nathan Metric says:

                      If you merely rely on people to have the same concern for the truth in order for them to find the meaning in your statements then you are basically admitting you have no logical reason for valuing the truth. Does that not bother you?

                    5. Logic is a tool that I use to further my goals.
                      My goals are derived from ny nature.

                      Logic is secondary, nature is primary.
                      There is no logical reason for why I want one thing over another; there is a natural reason.
                      The explanation is in my nature.
                      Logic is the engine. Nature is the destination.

                    6. Logic is secondary, nature is primary.

                      The proof of this is that logical ability is not shared between human beings, and that most will in the name of “logic” cherry-pick until they find the perspective that justifies what they want to believe is true.

                    7. If their nature is fundamentally opposed to mine, and their tree can never be like my tree, then we are natural enemies.

                      Another great point.

              2. Either he is trying to correct me because a)Nihilism is the truth and I ought to be reverent to the truth or b)he merely subjectively prefers that I be correct.

                This is not consistent. He can argue that nihilism is more accurate, and that he finds accuracy important when measuring possible results of potential actions.

                1. Nathan Metric says:

                  “This is not consistent. He can argue that nihilism is more accurate, and that he finds accuracy important when measuring possible results of potential actions”

                  And that means what exactly? Either you want me to be accurate because accuracy is a virtue or you want me to be accurate because you just subjectively prefer accuracy for the sake of a subjectively preferred goal. A distinction without a difference.

                  1. Accuracy is a virtue in my mind, and I hope in yours, when I try to convince you of a thing, like the nature of virtue and value.

                    I am trying to appeal to shared nature. I’m hoping that you also value truth, when I try to convince you of one.

              3. Rainer Weikusat says:

                You’re still simply misinterpreting/ -understanding the term. Nihilism is a phenomeon, not a moral or epistemological philosophy. It’s supposed to be the result of realizing that the traditional, religious justifications for “ethics” is hollow, ie, there’s no all-powerful guy with a big stick who’ll punish you after death in case you don’t obey to his commandents. Instead, both the commandents and the idea of this being are considered to have been created by humans and other humans can safely ignore them without condemning their immortal soul to eternal torment. Strictly speaking, in the originally negative way Nietzsche used the term, nihilism was a trait of the decadent who, upon realizing that purgatory was a fairy tale used to scare him into submission, concludes that nothing except his personal well-being ought to matter to him, either because he doesn’t understand that all these value systems based on fictional enforcers performed a necessary function for society or because he deliberately ignores that.

                »This is nonsense!« is simply not a sensible retort to that.

                1. I know, but nihilism is used to mean different things by different people.
                  Rather than argue about what the word really means or should mean, I accept what Brett Stevens means by it when he says it, and engage in conversation.

                  I agree to play his language game.

                  1. Rainer Weikusat says:

                    This reply seems a bit misplaced. I was replying to the misconception that »nihilism« must refer to something like a philosophical doctrine of the denial of everything: This proposition indeed turns all conversation into meaningless noise but as used here, it’s just a strawman: nobody except the guy argueing against it proposed that.

                    1. Another way to phrase that: things may be discovered, but the discovery is not shared except by those who take the same path.

                  2. It is appreciated, especially because, as a nihilist, I sense that conversation is limited by (a) sharing tokens and (b) the perceptive abilities and inclinations of the individual.

                    Maybe it will help other commenters in this thread if I say that nihilism is “syncretic elitism esotericism”? Heh heh.

                2. Adding to that, nihilism is a recognition that rules and morals are proxies for measuring actions by end results, which is more direct and cannot — unlike symbolic thinking — be captured and altered.

                3. Nathan Metric says:

                  “»This is nonsense!« is simply not a sensible retort to that.”

                  Um okay…is being “sensible” supposed to be a virtue or something?

                  1. Rainer Weikusat says:

                    This depends on your nature :->>

                    1. Nathan Metric says:

                      So if being sensible is not an inherent virtue then why should it matter to me whether I am sensible or not? Nothing matters period. You can’t go around saying “nothing matters” and dismiss an objection to this is self-defeating and silly philosophy of nihilism as unreasonable as though being reasonable actually matters. That is an arbitrary use of moral language.

                    2. Rainer Weikusat says:

                      I didn’t »go around and say “nothing matters”«, I made a specific (and rather different) statement about (foundation of) ethics. And at least for me, ethics neither includes logic nor observable reality.

                    3. And at least for me, ethics neither includes logic nor observable reality.

                      Generally, philosophers regard it as a branch of aesthetics.

                    4. Nathan Metric says:

                      You’re understanding of nihilism comes from Nietzsche, but that isn’t the type of nihilism anyone is talking about. I’m talking about nihilism as a philosophical position. Not a stage in the transvaluation of values which Nietzsche was talking about.

    4. Rainer Weikusat says:

      Belief in nothing; in no inherent meaning independent of human perspective, actually leads to the belief that the Good is what causes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

      Pizza?

  4. Vangelis is better says:

    How d’ya like Full Speed Ahead by D.R.I.?

  5. “it both liberates us from illusion and enslaves us to being aware.”

    A nice quote by Brett Stevens

  6. Roger says:

    All values are subjective, and flow from the type of biological organism one is (Nietzsche)

    Nihilism is a tool to un-brainwash those (‘intelligent’) types of biological organisms who, if not for herd-morality, would value ‘results’ (Stevens)

    Let’s all go home.

    1. Roger says:

      Nihilism = belief in no objective values. This everyone should agree on.

      With this in mind, why on earth would Nihilism lead intelligent people to (subjectively) value ‘results’ (over, say, the inherent worth of individual human beings)?

      Because ‘that is their nature’. Nihilism is effectively an acid-wash to dissolve everything that stops intelligent people realizing what would they would (subjectively) value, if it weren’t for herd-morality clouding their (subjective) value judgments: i.e. ‘results’.

      Questions:

      1. If herd-morality is removed the minds of our elites, will the REALLY begin valuing ‘results’ over, say, not offending people?

      2. Which results? Why won’t they value a result like this: that the individual is sacred and the greater good is what makes the most human beings happy?

      1. Roger says:

        In other words, there is a BIG assumption floating around like a bad smell.

        This is the assumption that INTELLIGENCE LEADS TO (subjectively) VALUING:

        1. Results, or ends (over means), and also:
        2. The kinds of results Brett Stevens (subjectively) values

        If only the barriers to intelligence were removed, people would value X. I.e. there is a RATIONAL or LOGICAL connection between IQ and certain (traditionlist(!)) values.

        HOW THE FUCK IS THIS NIHILISM?!

        1. Roger says:

          Calllliiinnnnggg:

          -Brett
          -Voddy
          -Reiner

          …….. Please Explain………….

          1. Sometimes, people get busy. I just got done dropping off the dead hookers in an wooded area near a busy freeway far from town, so I’ll give it a stab.

            1. Roger says:

              I do nothing but cruise DM.org.

              1. Best autistic anal hookup site ever.

        2. This is the assumption that INTELLIGENCE LEADS TO (subjectively) VALUING:

          1. Results, or ends (over means), and also:
          2. The kinds of results Brett Stevens (subjectively) values

          Intelligence leads to different conclusions depending on its level.

          The higher one goes, the more one sees.

          But, per Dunning-Kruger, it will sound like nonsense to those at lower levels.

          You are misunderstanding this philosophy as an attempt to set up an “objective” (universal) truth.

      2. Rainer Weikusat says:

        the individual is sacred and the greater good is what makes the most human beings happy

        This contradicts itself (at least when worded in this simple way): Treating a minority of individuals as sacred may well collide with what would benefit a majority of other individuals (I’m not going to provide a silly, contrived example for that). There’s also a more fundamental problem with any utilitarian approach to morality, namely, while the past can be examined and actions can thus be declared as ‘moral’ or ‘amoral’ based on their effective utility in hindsight, this isn’t terribly useful in practice because ‘moral’ is supposed to provide guidance for actions whose consequences are not yet known and can’t generally be predicted.

        1. Roger says:

          Please stick to the broader issue.

          The point is not that utilitarianism is a coherent moral philosophy.

          The point regards whether Nihilism, or the belief that nothing is objectively Good, can be used to DEFEND A RATIONAL/OBJECTIVE LINK BETWEEN INTELLIGENCE AND A CERTAIN MORAL OUTLOOK (i.e. traditionalism).

          By defending a rational/objective link between IQ and a certain set of values, one is effectively holding that, actually, something IS objectively Good.

          You endorse nihilism while also endorsing the idea that a certain set of values is written in the Cosmos, readable to those who have stopped looking at the shadows and who have grasped the forms. For Christ’s sake.

          1. The point regards whether Nihilism, or the belief that nothing is objectively Good, can be used to DEFEND A RATIONAL/OBJECTIVE LINK BETWEEN INTELLIGENCE AND A CERTAIN MORAL OUTLOOK (i.e. traditionalism).

            You are unfortunately committing a begging-the-question fallacy here. Nihilism rejects the objective/subjective dichotomy and rationalism.

            The point is that people are what they are, and we are confronted with a choice to pursue reality or the world of human intent.

            The two are incompatible.

            Therein is the beginning of the nihilist path.

            1. Roger says:

              I don’t believe the writer of all those metal articles I liked so much ten years ago is possible as obtuse as he’s being now.

              “The point is that people are what they are, and we are confronted with a choice to pursue reality or the world of human intent.”

              1. What on earth is ‘pursuing reality’? I take it you mean something ‘results that I like’ (i.e. not absolving the family unit, eugenics, population control, heavy metal)

              2. How is pursuing heavy metal over pop music, or the family unit over gay marriage, not simply part of ‘the world of human intent’ (namely, YOUR intent?)?????

              1. Pursuing reality means understanding the world on its own terms, as independent of human projection and filtering as possible.

                To your second question, human intent is based solely upon preference, which itself reflects the level of development of the individual; results-based choices show a different approach.

                1. Roger says:

                  You seem to be avoiding my questions, Brett.

                  So tell my why your desire to promote heavy metal over plastic pop music, or the nuclear family over some other arrangement, is not “based solely upon preference”…

                  1. It is based on consequentialist reasoning.

                    1. Roger says:

                      How so?

                      You must see where i’m pushing… Do you not?

                    2. Roger says:

                      Your DESIRE to promote heavy metal over plastic pop music might be CAUSED by consequentialist thinking: in thinking about the consequences of a world populated with plastic pop music, as opposed to good music, the VALUE JUDGEMENT ‘I don’t like this thought’ pops up in your head.

                      But that value judgement ITSELF is your own, arbitrary, subjective, human-centric, individual-centric, etc, value judgement.

                      Right?

            2. Roger says:

              I.e. It’s the Platonic gloss you give your philosophy that is unacceptable to anyone with a inquiring brain.

              Why not just be honest, damn it!, and hold the following:

              1. Nihilism is an objective fact, and leads to the revelation that there are no values that are good, in themselves: Politics is a war of values against conflicting values
              2. Going through nihilism will thus lead some people to throw off the lie of absolute values (which today are herd-based values), and value non herd-based values
              3. If enough of the right people do 2, then the war of values against conflicting values might tip in favour of non-herd based values

              Why dress up non-herd based values in the vaneer of Platonic objectivity?

              1. The answer to your question may be found in this: finding a way past universalism/rationalism is important for more reasons than debunking herd values, which are only debunked to those who understand why they are nonsense anyway. Humans cannot be educated, only revealed.

                1. Roger says:

                  But you don’t avoid rationalism. You proclaim that some values are more ‘realistic’ than others. THIS IS THE VERY OPPOSITE OF [ANTI-RATIONALISM] or [NIHILISM]. For fuck’s sake man…

                  1. You may want to revisit the definition of rationalism.

                    http://www.iep.utm.edu/cont-rat/

        2. Utilitarian morality is designed to convince people that some thoughts are off-limits.

          1. Rainer Weikusat says:

            It seems to be designed to enable people to avoid responsibilty for the eventual outcome of their own actions.

            1. Indeed. If one avoids the known “bad” things, everything else is presumed to be good, so if it ends in tears it is “not your fault.” Further, equality ensures that good and evil are seen as basically the same outcome, so those who do evil can argue that they were merely self-expressing.

      3. Nihilism = belief in no objective values. This everyone should agree on.

        And also… no subjective values.

        That is where it gets interesting.

    2. Try:

      All values…flow from the type of biological organism one is

  7. Memoncy - Joined in Dankness says:

    TL;DR: Brett wants to be a cult leader like his butt buddy crow, If you dont agree with or understand Nihilism® you are an idiot untermensch, and the means by which the “results” of our choices are determined to be good or bad aligned with Reality™ is self-evident and not at all subjective cuz its esoteric and you dont get it.

    1. squishy crackers that got rained on says:

      i’d say it’s generally evident depending on ability, and both subjective and objective or neither depending on the situational usefulness of these terms. they seem to be quite confusing to some.

  8. Hræsvelgr says:

    Death to false philosophy!

    Only Parmenides is real!

  9. Nathan Metric says:

    These threads are getting long and these posts are getting rather squashed on the side of the page.
    Bunch of questions for the nihilists of this site.

    1)What exactly is your intention for converting people into nihilists?

    2)Is the world repugnant to you because a)people are not living consistent with their natural self-interest or b)precisely because they succumb to their natural self-interest (such as getting the free government cheese, such as eating fast food, watching stupid movies, listening to bad music, etc)?
    2A)If the former is the case why do you believe this? Does Anonymous Conservative’s book The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics not refute the claim that we benefit from everyone following their natural self-interest?
    2B)If the latter is the case then what in the hell do you have to gain from spreading nihilism? Is it not UNNATURAL to encourage people to act against your natural self-interest?

    3)Has there even been a society whose guiding principle was a belief in nothing?

    4)Do you have goals by choice or do you have goals by nature?
    4A)If you think your goals are chosen then isn’t nihilism pointless since it leaves you without a standard for deciding upon what your self-interest ought to be?
    4B)If you think some of your most important goals are natural then prove it. Explain to me how your highest goals are natural (not subject to choice). For example, if your highest goal is to adhere to reality explain how the will to sanity is not a choice. If your highest goal is to survive, explain how your will to survive is not a choice. If your highest goal is to pursue happiness explain how pursuing happiness is not a choice. If you’re highest goal is to be a being of chaos explain how that is not a choice.

    5)If we are going to judge thoughts and behaviors by their naturalism then isn’t this “nihilism” just another moralism with different terminology? How is natural vs unnatural functionally different than good vs evil?

    1. Roger says:

      I would also like an answer to my line of questions, cintinued from above, as the dialectic is right where i want it to be:

      Roger:

      So tell my why your desire to promote heavy metal over plastic pop music, or the nuclear family over some other arrangement, is not “based solely upon preference”…

      Brett:

      It is based on consequentialist reasoning

      Roger:

      Your DESIRE to promote heavy metal over plastic pop music might be CAUSED by consequentialist thinking: in thinking about the consequences of a world populated with plastic pop music, as opposed to good music, the VALUE JUDGEMENT ‘I don’t like this thought’ pops up in your head.

      But that value judgement ITSELF is your own, arbitrary, subjective, human-centric, individual-centric, etc, value judgement.

      Right?

  10. Roger is a gay computer says:

    Nice work, Roger. You’re obviously very intelligent.

    1. Roger says:

      Thanks. When can we fuck?

Comments are closed.

Classic reviews:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z