Is there a philosopher that explains existence itself as will to nothingness, sort of like a realistic counterpart to Nietzsche?
Conspiracy Against the Human Race
Heidegger
Nonbeing is the ground of being. All the vagaries and problems of being are finally reconciled in the Nonbeing that conditions it
>>7589637
Zen Buddhism is probably the most radically nihilistic thing ever
>>7589637
ARE THERE ANY PHILOSOPHERS THAT I CAN READ THAT JUST CONFIRM WHATEVER IT IS THAT I WANT TO THINK?????
fuck you
>>7589661
You don't have to only read people you fundamentally disagree with all the time, lad.
>>7589658
>Zen
>nihilistic
Wew laddie
>>7589667
>Any particular work(s) I should read to get into Heidi?
Just dive right into Being and Time, m8. There are tons of secondary sources to help you get through it if you have a hard time.
>>7589651
I don't know your background in philosophy and shit but get the Basic Writings anthology from the Harper perennial modern thought series. Went into it blind and have found it extremely stimulating
>>7589674
i don't. how often does this shit pop up on /lit/? "hey lit is there a philosopher that i can read to confirm my neet suspicions?" dozens of times a day. does this not strike you as something inherently unphilosophical?
>>7589691
will-to-nothingness ain't necessarily the same thing as nihilism m8. Think "nothing" as the absolutely transcendent unmanifest, not corny anime villain hurrr all life ... Wants to return to the void.... Shit
Schopenhauer is the real world-denier.
Nietzsche would have you affirm your life.
>>7589696
>will-to-nothingness ain't necessarily the same thing as nihilism m8. Think "nothing" as the absolutely transcendent unmanifest, not corny anime villain hurrr all life ... Wants to return to the void.... Shit
what the fuck are you talking about, the "will-to-nothingness" is something you just made up.
>Think "nothing" as the absolutely transcendent unmanifest
please go away. this coming from someone currently studying heidegger at the doctoral level
>>7589691
What does it have to do with being NEET? I'm wondering if a philosopher ever incorporated the notion that existence itself is working constantly towards its own disintegration.
I know working is hard but you don't have to take it out on imaginary enemies on a Formosan fiction forum.
>>7589722
>The Being of beings is the transcendens pure and simple.
>"Pure Being and pure Nothing are therefore the same". This proposition if Hegel's is correct.
From Being and Time and What is Metaphysics?
Nice to see that money's not going to waste
>>7589651
Horrible misunderstanding of Heidegger, determinate being is not nothing.
>>7589750
Hegel doesn't mean what you think he means, read the science of logic.
>>7589763
What? He literally says dasein being held out to nothing is transcendence.
>>7589770
What do you think I mean? I ain't reading no Hegel right now just explain it to me nigga
>>7589739
No, but neither does anyone else mentioned in this thread.
For example, with Heidegger, Dasein is fundamentally constituted in its being as a Being-toward-death--its life-world is structured by this awareness of life's ultimate end. To avoid this truth is an exercisee in 'inauthenticity', but to recognize it is not to embrace a 'will-to-nothingness'. It should, rather, throw you back onto yourself, and present you with the difficult choice of becoming yourself, or becoming an other. Etc, etc.
Philipp Mainländer might be interesting to you OP.
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/philipp-mainlandera-forgotten-philosopherrotting-god-67687.html
Some excerpts from Holden88:
>The universe is in a state of harmony, despite all the fighting and slaughtering that is going on in it. It is in harmony, because every part of it origins from the basic unity, the God that killed himself and therefore created the universe. Each individual once was a part of the basic unity, therefore it is exactly what it decided to be, when it was part of God. All the individual beings, no matter if organic or unorganic, are now representing Gods will to die. Therefore, the will to die is the driving force of the universe. In the unorganic kingdom we have gases, liquids and solid substances. The gas only has one striving: to seperate in all directions. If it could unimpededly exert this striving, it would become weaker and weaker. If it truly fulfilled its striving, it would be annihilated. Liquids only have one striving: It wants to flow apart, to an ideal point, that is outside of itself. The striving for an ideal point outside itself is obviously a striving for annihilation, nothingness. Every solid substance or body has only one striving: to an ideal point, which is outside of itself. On our earth this point would be the center of the planet. If it would reach this goal, it would be annihilated the moment it reached it and turn into nothingness.
>The enlightened human being, equipped with the knowledge about the course of the universe and its movement into Nothingness, should now overcome all fear of death. Only who truly discarded that basic fear, created by the illusion of the will to live, which is just a mask of the true will of all beings - the will to die, is really free. What should contest an individual in that state of mind? Poverty? He has no fear of starvation. Enemies? They could in the worst case kill him, and death has nothing horrible anymore for him. Pain? If pain gets unbearable he gets rid of his body without hesitating. One can reach that state of enlightenment by always remembering that deep inside he wants death, because he is, like everything else, the result of a decision to die, which was the reason for the existence of our entire world.
>The course of the universe has now been proven as the movement from a over-being through a being into nothingness, and therefore it is secure, that redemption will come for everyone and everything. It's that a matter of time, and that timespan is exactly as long as it was decided to be by the basic unity. If an individual wants to phantasize about an Garden of Eden or whatever kind of paradise after death, we should let them, in the deep conviction that they simply can't see that the one and only true paradise is nothingness, which was chosen by the suicidal God as a better state than "somethingness".
>>7589799
I was the guy who suggested Heidegger. I took the being-towards-death as synonymous with will-to-nothingness, in the sense that we aspire to embody and internalize the truth of death and the unconditioned source it suggests. Apparently was looking for something decidedly more nihilistic and life-denying
>>7589637
Philip mainlander is who you want.
Hope your German's strong.
>>7589870
This.
>>7589782
Pure being is pure nothing because in pure being nothing is negated, but determinate being (i.e every "thing") is not nothing. You are confusing his talk about Being for talk about beings
>>7589903
His Die Philosophie der Erlösung was only translated to Russian, I believe - some Anon found it, or requested it? Can't recall.
>>7589933
I still don't get it or if that's what I meant in the first place and you're just misunderstanding but whatever thanks for trying at least
>>7589958
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtFS7Or-X_E
>>7589937
>Russian
Welp, I got lucky then.
>>7589637
Freud mentioned a death drive.
>>7589678
all of buddhism is nihilistic, it's literally a manual to stop reincarnation
>>7589661
>implying this isn't what we are all doing to feel less alone
>>7589637
>>>/his/phil ask them
>>7590659
I want to know about books regarding the subject to be honest.
>>7590296
Where can I find that?
>>7591343
http://www.edicionesxorki.es/filosofia.html
>>7590659
I can't think of a philosopher or a philosophical tradition that does _not_ live through books or texts. These things are inextricable
>>7592688
Idk. English is my mother tongue, but I am also fluent in Spanish. I'm considering translating the Spanish into English because I just can't believe someone hasn't translated it into English yet, but I'm sure it would be a horrible mess.
>>7589691
It's more like, "Hey lit, I want to know more about an idea I'm interested in."
ok
>>7592780
Get a nice fat government grant or something.
I'm still waiting for a Norwegian anon to translate Zapffe to be honest.
>>7590276
>Buddhism
>Nihilistic
"What actually happened was something absurdly simple and unspectacular: just for the moment I stopped thinking. Reason and imagination and all mental chatter died down. For once, words really failed me. I forgot my name, my humanness, my thingness, all that could be called me or mine. Past and future dropped away. It was as if I had been born that instant, brand new, mindless, innocent of all memories. There existed only the Now, that present moment and what was clearly given in it. To look was enough. And what I found was khaki trouserlegs terminating downwards in a pair of brown shoes, khaki sleeves terminating sideways in a pair of pink hands, and a khaki shirtfront terminating upwards in - absolutely nothing whatever! Certainly not in a head.
It took me no time at all to notice that this nothing, this hole where a head should have been was no ordinary vacancy, no mere nothing. On the contrary, it was very much occupied. It was a vast emptiness vastly filled, a nothing that found room for everything - room for grass, trees, shadowy distant hills, and far above them snow-peaks like a row of angular clouds riding the blue sky. I had lost a head and gained a world.
It was all, quite literally, breathtaking. I seemed to stop breathing altogether, absorbed in the Given. Here it was, this superb scene, brightly shining in the clear air, alone and unsupported, mysteriously suspended in the void, and (and this was the real miracle, the wonder and delight) utterly free of "me", unstained by any observer. Its total presence was my total absence, body and soul. Lighter than air, clearer than glass, altogether released from myself, I was nowhere around.
Yet in spite of the magical and uncanny quality of this vision, it was no dream, no esoteric revelation. Quite the reverse: it felt like a sudden waking from the sleep of ordinary life, an end to dreaming. It was self-luminous reality for once swept clean of all obscuring mind. It was the revelation, at long last, of the perfectly obvious. It was a lucid moment in a confused life-history. It was a ceasing to ignore something which (since early childhood at any rate) I had always been too busy or too clever or too scared to see. It was naked, uncritical attention to what had all along been staring me in the face - my utter facelessness. In short, it was all perfectly simple and plain and straightforward, beyond argument, thought, and words. There arose no questions, no reference beyond the experience itself, but only peace and a quiet joy, and the sensation of having dropped an intolerable burden."
Enlightenment and no self and emptiness only seem nihilistic to those who have neither knowledge of Buddhism or experience with any kind of contemplative tradition.
>>7595487
I would but Zapfes stuff is really hard to find even in Norwegian
and if you find it it's expensive as fuck
>>7595493
How do I arrive at the described experience? Meditation?
>>7595535
(people today call meditation what is called contemplation, and people today call ''to philosophy'' what is called ''to meditate'')
contemplation of an object serves to calm the mind, be serene, tranquil, what the dhamma calls samatha, thanks to a unified mind with the object (of contemplation). this is nice and brings bliss which the hedonist always enjoys. the point of the dhamma is more to use this serenity (which remains after the contemplation for a long time or not, but it always ceases) in order to apply the ''three characteristics of existence'' which means ''impersonality, impermanence, therefore impertinence [=dukkha] [=in asking, is it worth it to take this sensation seriously, to care about it so much that it becomes worth clinging to (whereas I know that this sensation is manifestly fading constantly, as soon as I strive to get it and get it) ? and in answering this by 'no']''.
most hedonist do not wish to meditate in order to get what is called, in the dhamma, the penetrative view (vipassana). the hedonist meditates to get pleasures.
so the start is really to get going in good conducts in daily life, in order to avoid the feeding of the mind by speculations about paying bills, about exams, about gfs and other fantasies in the future and the past, then take meditation seriously , preferably with some guide, or after watching videos (and only after this buying books).
download the torrent of the pack of audio teaching of aya khema, a theravadan nun [theravada is the least exotic sect, but more difficult since it goes straight to the point]
https://4ch.be/lit/thread/7475103/#7478018
It is simply not true that people have not investigated this approach. They just tend to classify themselves as something other than philosophers.
Perhaps logic should be a branch of psychology or cognitive science. But, traditionally, it isn't. We would like to imagine that the built-in human language processing system can be approached entirely from within itself: that it is not tied to our bodies, or even our temporal existence. So we have made three very different things out of the study of words: logic, linguistics, and philology, in increasing order of the degree to which they admit psychology matters.
Displacing this issue onto what is effectively a computer model, wherein the mind is viewed as a fact-rewriting machine, works for linguistics. In a Chomskian model, referents are generated as nameless tokens and resolved by transformations until they can be expressed. This kind of approach resolves the whole issue, but at the cost of stepping away from what 'meaning' is, and into a world that presumes the mind works a given way, albeit one that gets a lot of support when we look at how other cultures form and use their languages.
A view more embedded in philology comes from Lacan and Desassure. It admits that ultimate referents never actually exist, they are players in stories, and the stories do not have meanings, they have effects. In that context, again, something like your approach makes sense. The potential existence of the differerence between A and B is a negotiating position, not a fact, so its ultimate resolution is not about meaning, it is about navigating the world. The story of how it might exist matters, temporarily, just as much as the bigger story where we ultimately decide it doesn't.
But traditional ontology tends to want to support both realistic and idealist positions, to some degree. So it avoids explicitly letting logic be reduced to linguistics or philology. Traditionally, the people looking at these issues have always preferred to handle language in terms of other intuitions, and to reify imaginary ideals, rather than relying on actual acts of interaction or processing. We want a model that feels like mathematics, because then we can correctly layer our sciences, and have a single most basic kind of belief, that springs entirely from intuition. Mathematics requires that any solution should be expressible in terms of imaginary objects alone.
I think we know now, that this kind of endeavor is bound to fail. We already know the weakness of models like this from mathematics' study of itself: our natural view of negation, and our equally strong intuition of 'plenitude' (that anything logically entailed by other mental images can always be imagined) don't fit together in absolute terms. Evading that issue in logic is as important as evading it in set-theory. But we keep right on doing mathematics, and we will keep doing this.
>>7589823
This is the dumbest shit I have ever read.
>>7597846
Seems pretty compatible with the heat death of the universe to me, lad.
>>7589712
Schopenhauer absolutely do NOT deny the world. Kant denied the world.
>>7589722
>please go away. this coming from someone currently studying heidegger at the doctoral level
Why do people do this? Too stupid for STEM but still need official validation of their intellectualism?
You could read Demons from Dostoyevski and pay special attention to Kirilov's character. It's a pretty good book too so it's a win win situation
>>7589661
Stirner
>>7598424
Empirical materialism is an essential part of Kant's philosophy (not to say he wasn't also an idealist, the man is complicated)
If you want a purely idealist Kant who denies the world just look to Berkeley
>>7598424
Kant denied the possibility of knowledge independent of our particular cognitive apparatus; Schopenhauer endorsed a negative disposition toward existence. The former is an epistemological stance, the latter a moral/existential one.
>>7589637
Since this is /lit/:
“...the reason for living was to get ready to stay dead a long time.” Faulkner, As I Lay Dying
>>7589637
In a way, Hegel.
It isn't as much as the willing will as the necessary conclusion.
bump...
>>7590337
Fuck you, not now
>>7589712
Nigga Schopenhauer's entire philosophy was based on the "Will to Life," the exact opposite of what OP is talking about. Sure, Schopenhaeur ultimately classified the Will as a bad thing, but he certainly never thought that this Will strived toward nothingness.
Also, wtf are you going on about, OP? How can you think that "experience"--- and by experience I assume you either mean life (the biological sense), or being (in the metaphysical sense)---wills itself to nothingness? Objects in motion stay in motion; we do not "will" ourselves to nothingness, we are dragged to it, or we drag ourselves against every natural, sustaining aspect of our consitution.
Also, shouldn't this be on /his/?
>>7601582
I misquoted OP; I meant "existence" when I said "experience."
>>7601582
The will must will its own negation. Don't presume to speak on matters you know nothing about.
>>7589823
What a fucking joke, lmao.
>anyone who defines the fundamental principle governing all reality through nothing but subjective association based on preconceived axioms (which are in turn based on human notions of decay v. growth, "willing" vs "not willing)
As much as I love the guy, this my biggest problem with Schopenhaeur, too. Hell, all these philosophers who attempt to assign the universe a singular, underlying metaphysic by way of some vaguely mystical euphemism like "the will." While the Will to Life is a brilliant abstraction which illuminates the behavior of lifeforms on a near empirical level and provides useful generalizations for the properties universe as a whole, it is terrible as a concrete "fundamdntal law of all things," for to assign all things in the universe a single course of action based on nothing but an individual's conception of what would fit the poorly defined course's criteria is the goofy kind of shit that philosophers get laughed at for. And it's made funnier when you see how the opposite argument could just as easily, just as meaninglessly, be made.
>>7601604
"The will must will its own negation."
Are you referring to Schopenhaeur, here? Because he viewed the will and intellect as separate entities, and considered acts like suicide examples of the intellect overcoming the will.
Also, the will to life cannot negate the will to life by way of the will to life; if the will ro life is negated, it is by some other force (perhaps a different will.) Otherwise we run into an obvious paradox.
>>7601582
>Also, wtf are you going on about, OP? How can you think that "experience"--- and by experience I assume you either mean life (the biological sense), or being (in the metaphysical sense)---wills itself to nothingness? Objects in motion stay in motion; we do not "will" ourselves to nothingness, we are dragged to it, or we drag ourselves against every natural, sustaining aspect of our consitution.
Since its conception our universe has been burning up and stretching out which will continue to the point of empty stasis. The one shared trait of everything that exists is its road towards non-existence.
Existence is something that has been undoing itself from the start.
If there would be a Will, it seems reasonable to say it is a Will to this.
>>7601616
But the fact that every object is brought to nonexistence does not mean that these objects"will" themselves there. Rather, the laws of the universe dictate that things be and then cease to be, be and then cease to be, be and then cease to be, for who is to say that this universe has been the only one, and why would the universe have birthed itself had it been governed by desire for death? The fact that objects were brought into existence would contradict a will to death unless one accepted the "god killed himself" theory, which I see no reason to, because it's silly.
>>7589637
>Is there a philosopher who is wrong in this specific way?
>>7601651
>reading philosophers for how right they are
pleb
>>7595493
woah
>>7595493
This is what gets me about buddhism.
That kind of awakening doesn't belong to buddhism at all.
Buddhism cannot provide, through philosophical reason, a transcendent ground for existence.
It lends itself to the superlative intuition of existence but stops there, it does not seek to put a name to this mechanism and this is its greatest limitation and deficiency.
>>7601614
The will-to-life is found in particularization; the denial of the will-to-life is Will in its undifferentiated totality negating its particularization. The route to this knowledge is through the intellect, but the denial of the will-to-life is itself the will particulated willing against its particularization.
If you sense a paradox here, you are not the first.
The Have A Nice Life album Deathconciousness comes with a short book detailing an account of a religious sect with a similar ideal.
>>7589691
I get where you're coming from. It's just bc no one lurks enough to realize you literally have to start with the greeks.
ubnnp
