How do moral and existential debates still exist when nihilism is a thing? A logical consequence of nihilism is to simply do whatever brings you the most pleasure and satisfaction, since it's the most "efficient" way of living (minimize suffering, maximize enjoyment). Why do we still attempt to debate ethics and morals when it's obvious that one's best course of action is doing what brings them satisfaction (which actually encompasses morals, since moral values are there to provide validation like everything else)?
I know fuck all about actual philosophy, so forgive me if this post looks like babby's first existential crisis
god fuck you
Nihilism is the rejection of goals as irrelevant human construct
You are thinking solipsism, look it up you massive flaming fucking moron
>>7715351
The inherent problem with nihilism is, taken to it's logical conclusion, that nothing exists beyond your perception of it, meaning that the people you love, the things you do, the poems you write, none of it exists, and all existence is pointless.
So yes, do you what you want. It won't fill the emptiness that was created when your innocence was torn away from you.
>>7715362
But they're not mutually exclusive
>>7715367
That emptiness can't be filled, but that reinforces the original point — since nothing exists beyond what we perceive, the only course of action that makes any sense is to live according to your desires. In any case, there's no place for morals or ideology
>>7715455
But "achieving" your desires [debatable if you can anyway] will still be pointless, so you may as well do nothing.
>being older than 15
>taking nihilism seriously
i won't take this bait
>>7715474
How is it wrong? What makes you think it isn't the most fundamental way to view existence?
>>7715466
It's true that you might as well do nothing. In the end, since nothing means anything, you're truly free. So a living being which experiences physical feelings might as well seek as much dopamine as possible since pleasure is physically preferable to pain. It still won't mean anything, but the main appeal of nihilism is that it is completely devoid of intellectual dishonesty
Is there a philosophy or movement that attempts to separate itself from all other ideologies and moralistic values?
I dislike ideas that attempt to determine what's right and wrong and how things should be and I don't believe objectivity exists.
I relate to the OP in that I think individual sovereignty and freedom to act and think without being burdened by outside rules is extremely valuable, but I don't think I'm a nihilist, since I reject any idea that attempts to define what or why things are.
I'm struggling to find any philosophies or writers that correspond to those ideas, though
>>7715369
nor do they entail eachother
>>7715510
It absolutely is intellectually dishonest to reject any importance of morality, and yes it absolutely sounds like babby's first existential crisis btw. I will not ridicule you, many people have taken his line of thinking, but I will ridicule the line itself.
An absolute commitment to such nihilism is the rejection of all value, and yet apparently pleasure is to be valued. But pleasure is as fleeting and meaningless as anything else, just another cog in your existence. If you can ask yourself why people should seek pleasure you can ask yourself why people should seek moral impetus, and even just the capacity to ask the question undermines your position. Commit yourself to pleasure if you feel that's all there is, but do not suppose yourself rationally superior to those who who are committed elsewhere.
>>7715351
Only a smart % actually believe in nihilism. You not being in the category if you had to make this topic you underage faggot.
Want to discuss philosophy go to /his/
>>7716620
>It absolutely is intellectually dishonest to reject any importance of morality,
How so?
How do you justify morality as being anything else than an arbitrary set of rules you burden yourself with?
I genuinely don't understand what the logical reasoning behind morals is. How do you rationalize being a "moral" person?
>>7715351
>I know fuck all about actual philosophy,
I don't want to be the dick here but, you wouldn't try to start a discussion with a doctor if you knew nothing about physiology right?
If you want meaningful (pun intended) philosophical discussions, you better come prepared and not start with something so obvious.
Maybe read a book or two by some famous nihilists.
>How do moral and existential debates still exist when nihilism is a thing?
Because 50% of the population wouldn't be able to tell you what nihilism is.
> A logical consequence of nihilism is to simply do whatever brings you the most pleasure and satisfaction
Apparently, neither do you.
Absolute nihilism means that pleasure is equally meaningless as all the rest. At least if you apply actual logic to nihilism.
>Why do we still attempt to debate ethics and morals when it's obvious that one's best course of action is doing what brings them satisfaction.
What you are describing is hedonism.
Get your shit together.
OP wants to try sounding smart without being smart. Not even a little educated for that matter.
>>7716780
How do you justify pleasure as being anything else than an arbitrary set of hormones and electrical brain signals you burden yourself with?
I genuinely don't understand what the logical reasoning behind pleasure is. How do you rationalize being a "pleased" person?
They're just fucking chemicals, man. "You" don't even "exist" to "feel" them. It's all an illusion.
Yeah I love that book that OP isnt talking about.
>>7715351
Can we talk about how friggin cozy that bed looks? bout to go to dream land staring at this pic
>>7716849
That doesn't make sense
Why should I care about other people as much as I care about myself?
>>7716869
It really does... dream on you dreamer.
>>7716849
Why burden yourself with breathing, friend? :^)
>>7715351
I'm reminded of an apologue
Two monks are sitting by their campfire. The first monk expresses his belief that reality is illusory, that all that may be called knowledge is nothing but contingent truth and that terms like "good" and "evil" are empty emanations of perspective.
His arguments were so logical and sophisticated that the second monk couldn't help but agree with his conclusions. He then proceeded to take a stick from the fire and, in one smooth motion, burned the leg of his fellow monk.
"Why did you do that brother?!" Asked the first monk in alarm. Calmly the second monk met his brothers eyes and said: "So you agree that there is a difference between burned and not burned?"
>>7716908
Jaj
/thread
>>7716477
>I don't believe objectivity exists.
Look into Buddhism. There are many many flavours but at its most basic it is about developing awareness of reality and what it has in common with nihilism the focus on individual experience and intuition - IE if ideas or philosophies do not agree with your experience reject them, the highest truth is what you alone conclude to be true.
Many traditions also assert that good and bad can only exist because of each but you should find out yourself.
>>7716661
You're new here aren't you?
Anyway /his/ is just /pol/ meets /b/ meets /k/ meets US high school history
>>7716908
This is stupid. How does the burn invalidate what the first monk said? The other monk is retarded
>>7716826
Was scrolling and really hoping I didn't have to be the one to make that post. Thanks.
>>7716780
>How do you justify morality as being anything else than an arbitrary set of rules you burden yourself with?
You're really in deep in the whole edgy 16yr old world view huh.
As I was getting at before, to actually commit to such an absolute nihilism, -everything- is arbitrary. Assuming for a second that this is acceptable, you say in the OP that a logical consequence of this is to do whatever brings you the most pleasure (and satisfaction, but this is another thing entirely). Why is morality arbitrary, but pleasure is not? "Because it feels good"? This is not an explanation, nor a justification of a hedonistic agenda, all this is is a descriptive statement.
>>7716877
Why shouldn't you?
I may not have properly answered your question, I do not have the eloquence to do so. The point im trying to make here is that the position you hold betrays the position, the nihilism, that you claim to hold. Turn your questioning on yourself, why do YOU value the things you value whatsoever? Do this honestly and you might outgrow your naivety.
>>7717023
>suddenly, denying the existence of morality is edgy
Regardless of the initial discussion about nihilism, I genuinely want to know why you believe in moral values.
Why would you have any values? Why would you "value" anything else than yourself?
Everyone does it anyway. Everything you do is selfish and is done only because it brings you satisfaction.
>>7717085
>suddenly
k
>Why would you have any values? Why would you "value" anything else than yourself?
Why would you value yourself?
If everything is arbitrary, then it is impossible that anything is more arbitrary than anything else.
If everything I do is selfish, then nothing I do is selfish.
You're asking ethical questions but you don't believe in ethics. This is why I said even the capacity to ask such questions threatens to undermine your position. What is value? If you're a nihilist, this question makes no sense.
>I genuinely want to know why you believe in moral values.
I'm not smart enough to answer this question in a way that does it merit. What I am smart enough to understand is the point that you're repeatedly missing, which has been made by myself and other posters:
>>7716908
>>7716849
If you really can't understand the point being made then there's nothing else I can say to you.
>>7716997
It's the classic epistemic vs ontological distinction
I'll give another example
A physicist and a rock are thrown out of an airplane. In the time before he hits the ground, the physicist perfectly understands the condition he's in, the velicity at which he's falling and what mechanical factors would be necessary to slow his descent enough that he lands light as a feather. The rock doesn't even know it's a rock, let alone that it's falling or why.
They hit the ground and shatter into a sickening amalgam of flesh and stone.
>>7715351
Please refrain from posting in this board again until you've done some reading. Thank you.
