The Nihilist Manifesto

[infoterror]

Nihilism is a different sort of belief because, unlike almost all beliefs, it's a conduit and not an endpoint. Most belief systems lay out a series of static objectives and claim if these are achieved, everything will be as peachy as it can be; the most dangerous are the Utopian ones, which promise an absolute near perfection that has little to do with reality. "Some day we'll eliminate all war" and "free markets make free souls" both fall into this category. Believing such homilies is akin to thinking that if you buy the right guitar, you'll be able to automatically create the best music ever, et cetera ad nauseaum. Nihilism does not claim a Utopian solution, and is in fact contra-Utopian: by the nature of its being a philosophical viewpoint, and not a mass trend around which you're expected to rally, it defines itself as a way of viewing the world including such political mass trends. There is no ultimate solution, no absolute Utopia, only a better mental tool for perceiving and analyzing whatever situations arise.

http://www.*********/zine/nihilism/

[speed]

Originally Posted by infoterror

Nihilism is a different sort of belief because, unlike almost all beliefs, it's a conduit and not an endpoint. Most belief systems lay out a series of static objectives and claim if these are achieved, everything will be as peachy as it can be; the most dangerous are the Utopian ones, which promise an absolute near perfection that has little to do with reality. "Some day we'll eliminate all war" and "free markets make free souls" both fall into this category. Believing such homilies is akin to thinking that if you buy the right guitar, you'll be able to automatically create the best music ever, et cetera ad nauseaum. Nihilism does not claim a Utopian solution, and is in fact contra-Utopian: by the nature of its being a philosophical viewpoint, and not a mass trend around which you're expected to rally, it defines itself as a way of viewing the world including such political mass trends. There is no ultimate solution, no absolute Utopia, only a better mental tool for perceiving and analyzing whatever situations arise.

http://www.*********/zine/nihilism/

Not a bad article. However, does a nihilist need a manifesto or some guide?

[The Deacon Dr. O]

According to ANUS, I would consider myself to be very Nihilistic. However, I dont use this term often outside of ANUS, because the commonly accepted usages are so different.

DICTIONARY.COM:

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



I prefer the ANUS deffenition... first of all, a philosophy that denies all forms of existence would be absolutely illogical and impossible. How can one that does not exist have philosophy? If the dictionary deffenition (1) of Nihilism is correct, then how can there be Nihilists?

[angelofdeath9308]

Originally Posted by infoterror

Nihilism is a different sort of belief because, unlike almost all beliefs, it's a conduit and not an endpoint. Most belief systems lay out a series of static objectives and claim if these are achieved, everything will be as peachy as it can be; the most dangerous are the Utopian ones, which promise an absolute near perfection that has little to do with reality. "Some day we'll eliminate all war" and "free markets make free souls" both fall into this category. Believing such homilies is akin to thinking that if you buy the right guitar, you'll be able to automatically create the best music ever, et cetera ad nauseaum. Nihilism does not claim a Utopian solution, and is in fact contra-Utopian: by the nature of its being a philosophical viewpoint, and not a mass trend around which you're expected to rally, it defines itself as a way of viewing the world including such political mass trends. There is no ultimate solution, no absolute Utopia, only a better mental tool for perceiving and analyzing whatever situations arise.

http://www.*********/zine/nihilism/

I dont think anyone believes that if you buy the right guitar, you'll automatically be a virtuoso. That is like saying that if you believe in a certain philosophy, the world will automatically turn into a Utopia. I do agree though that the ideas that claim perfection are the most dangerous though (or misguided). "Only a better mental tool," better than what? I do have a question, there being no solution, where do you go with a nihilist mindset?

[speed]

Originally Posted by angelofdeath9308

I dont think anyone believes that if you buy the right guitar, you'll automatically be a virtuoso. That is like saying that if you believe in a certain philosophy, the world will automatically turn into a Utopia. I do agree though that the ideas that claim perfection are the most dangerous though (or misguided). "Only a better mental tool," better than what? I do have a question, there being no solution, where do you go with a nihilist mindset?

The end makes a nice point.

Now that I think about it, I do like where Prozak is going with his article. He is not only trying to clear up misconceptions in a non-dogmatic manner, but he has sort of a dream of influencing higher minded individuals who can understand. Nietszche understood this. Thus Spake Zarathustra always reminds of the classical Cynics and Stoics; these wise sayings that make up a code for enlightened virtuous living.

[Demiurge]

Originally Posted by speed

The end makes a nice point.

Now that I think about it, I do like where Prozak is going with his article. He is not only trying to clear up misconceptions in a non-dogmatic manner, but he has sort of a dream of influencing higher minded individuals who can understand. Nietszche understood this. Thus Spake Zarathustra always reminds of the classical Cynics and Stoics; these wise sayings that make up a code for enlightened virtuous living.

Yes, I agree that a philosophical work is not for anyone who picks it up, or at least shouldn't be. I even approve of esotericism in philosophy, since I don't believe truth should be given to just anyone. Some philosophers have understood the use of noble lies, but their type has died off. Now, everyone just blathers truths to anyone who'll listen with little regard for how they'll apply them.

[Cythraul]

Originally Posted by Demiurge

Yes, I agree that a philosophical work is not for anyone who picks it up, or at least shouldn't be. I even approve of esotericism in philosophy, since I don't believe truth should be given to just anyone. Some philosophers have understood the use of noble lies, but their type has died off. Now, everyone just blathers truths to anyone who'll listen with little regard for how they'll apply them.

I'd like to know the reasoning behind why you think truth shouldn't be given to "just anyone." Or am I not worthy of hearing it? As far as I'm concerned, philosophy should be about clarity and rigorous argument, not obfuscation for the sake of satisfying elitist pretensions.

[Demiurge]

Originally Posted by Cythraul

I'd like to know the reasoning behind why you think truth shouldn't be given to "just anyone."

My reasoning on this is not complex at all. Philosophic knowledge is dangerous and should be spread cautiously.

As far as I'm concerned, philosophy should be about clarity and rigorous argument, not obfuscation for the sake of satisfying elitist pretensions.

I'm referring to real elitism. That is, the esoteric meaning is there for anyone, but will only be discerned by those whose minds it is for. Philosophy in this sense is for everyone and for the few at once. Anyone may become involved, few will grasp the whole truth. In this way, we protect knowledge from non-philosophers who would use it to satisfy their appetite for wealth, political power, glory, etc. It is noble lies that hold things together at all.

[Cythraul]

Well fucking shit! I think I might actually agree with you here...sort of...for the most part I guess. But ummm, the problem is, philosophy hasn't really given anybody much knowledge at all. I mean, variations on the same debates that originated in the ancient world are still going on today. Of course, you might mean something different than I do when you speak of "philosophic knowledge."

[Cat5Messiah]

Nihilism, in my eyes, is another form of Atheism. Atheists (as far as I know) believe that our existence is our life on this planet and nothing more. Purely scientific which doesn't have the valuable information to explain supernatural phenomena. I do not believe in Nihilism nor Atheism. Though, I do not consider myself to be Christian, Mormon, Satanist, Pagan, etc. etc. I do not believe in organized religion for they are all 'cults' to me. Sure, you could be skeptical about our very existance but to label it? Labeling personal beliefs should not happen. My beliefs differ than a lot of people yet not as many as I may think. My ex-fiance, who is Pagan, said that she believed me to be Pagan because of some of my beliefs. Would I label myself as that? No. Why? Because Paganism (if that's even a word), in my eyes, have a belief structure. I do not believe in a belief structure.

Independant Pagan, maybe? Possibly. I do not believe in Heaven, Hell, God nor Satan. I do, though, believe in the afterlife, our souls being our true forms searching for ultimate wisdom and reincarnation. But, who is to say? Nobody knows for sure and ourselves as individuals will not know until our last second on this planet has passed.

NP: Symphony X - Awakenings

[speed]

Originally Posted by Cythraul

Well fucking shit! I think I might actually agree with you here...sort of...for the most part I guess. But ummm, the problem is, philosophy hasn't really given anybody much knowledge at all. I mean, variations on the same debates that originated in the ancient world are still going on today. Of course, you might mean something different than I do when you speak of "philosophic knowledge."

I totally agree with you for once on something.

[Korona]

Nihilism in the strongest sense is the complete denial of everything. Its not even possible to do that, you cant deny everything, even Descartes knew that (I think therefore I am). The act of denial implies a being to be doing the denying.

Back in the real world of sane and normal people, how are you to deny all values?! any kind of arguement presupposes the ability to talk and have discourse with people and that means you need the shared values that are used to build a language. (A private language would be pointless even if it were possible which it's not.)

In the loosest sense nihilism is a rejection of moral values. It devalues life.

In all senses nihilism is confused and dangerous.

[The Deacon Dr. O]

I'm not sure if this coincides with Prozak's defenition of Nihilism, but this is my manifestation of Nihilism, although to call my belief such might be linguistically incorrect.

Nihilism is more than a simple rejection of reality, existence, or morals. Nihilism is a rejection of previous judgements and prejudices... it does not dictate that things have no value, but that the value of any situation or event is individual to both the perspective that any entity stands in relation to event, and the event itself. Thus, we cannot make an accurate judgement on the value of any event without first removing ourselves from the prejudices of others.

Imagine this in a geometric sense: A given event which we wish to assign a value to is represented by a three dimensional shape on a three dimensional plane. Will this shape appear to be the same thing if you view it from three different points plotted on a plane?

When you apply this to a situation such as the act of killing, it becomes clear that you cannot simply assume that "Killing is bad". Each situation in which one man kills another is different. The perspectives of each man are different. How then, can you assign a defenite value to an indefenite number of situations? Unless you are truly omniscient, in that you have seen every murder ever perpetuated, from every perspective of everyone involved, you cannot claim that the general act of killing is good or evil - You can only state the quality of a particular action, from your perspective on it.


Nietzsche:

"There are no facts, only interpretations."

"To admit a belief merely because it is a custom - but that means to be dishonest, cowardly, lazy! - And so could dishonesty, cowardice and laziness be the preconditions for morality?"

[Nightendday]

The linked article continually assumes and later confuses cause and effect and is misleading. It has been put down in presumptious populist language, and draws ridiculous parallels. It is highly selective in its exemplification, which results inevitably in conveniently ignoring cons. A detailed criticism would easily exceed the length of the article, but time and intellect do no permit me to delve. Quite simply, it fails to achieve what it set out to achieve: the destruction of dogma, bias and prejudice.

[infoterror]

Originally Posted by SSJ4SephirothX

Nihilism, in my eyes, is another form of Atheism. Atheists (as far as I know) believe that our existence is our life on this planet and nothing more.

If you read the article, you will see it is neither atheistic nor materialistic (monism confined purely to physical comfort). It is not dualistic, either, and therein is a complicated philosophical journey, but it's not really all that hard.

Apparently, some people would rather see it in video form, so we produced a visual aid to go along with the page:

http://www.*********/etc/video/

The comments on this thread are of relatively outstanding quality. I am pleasantly surprised.

[infoterror]

Originally Posted by The Deacon Dr. O

Imagine this in a geometric sense: A given event which we wish to assign a value to is represented by a three dimensional shape on a three dimensional plane. Will this shape appear to be the same thing if you view it from three different points plotted on a plane?

This makes a lot of sense to me. We see the tip of the iceberg, but what if the iceberg exists in more than (2,3) dimensions?

[The Deacon Dr. O]

Originally Posted by infoterror

This makes a lot of sense to me. We see the tip of the iceberg, but what if the iceberg exists in more than (2,3) dimensions?

I think it always exists in multiple dimensions. Maybe that was a rhetorical question, but I believe that there is always more to a situation than what you see, even if you're the most informed person.

[infoterror]

Originally Posted by The Deacon Dr. O

I think it always exists in multiple dimensions. Maybe that was a rhetorical question, but I believe that there is always more to a situation than what you see, even if you're the most informed person.

By mathematical definition, a person (part of whole) will not very likely see the full structure of the whole, as to do so requires the contrast of what is not whole, e.g. needs something larger than the whole to see it.

All this "larger hole" discussion makes me want to visit www.goat.cx

[derek]

Well yeah, being part of the super-structure makes our viewing it impossible.

[The Deacon Dr. O]

Of course you cant ever be Omniscient, but recognizing how much you dont know is a good step towards being more accurate.

[derek]

Well it's a good step to realising you don't know much on the grand scale of things, but It hardly makes you more accurate, probably only more aware of how inaccurate you are.

[speed]

To most especially Demiurge and Infoterror: I have noticed a trend towards liberal or religious types, to make the naive mistake of confusing nihilism with anarchism. I am personally becoming tired of expalining to these dunces that not only has the last one hundred years of art, philosophy, and music been essentially nihilisitc, but that nihilism is not about destruction. I think it would behoove these fools to have a handy nihilist handbook to reference. ALthough, I doubt they will understand it.

[infoterror]

Originally Posted by speed

To most especially Demiurge and Infoterror: I have noticed a trend towards liberal or religious types, to make the naive mistake of confusing nihilism with anarchism.

I've noticed this as well. They assume nihilism must be rejection of everything, like the kneejerk reaction that considering nihilism so is in them. Nihilism is a mind-tuning. Few are ready for this (another reason why democracy is garbage).

[speed]

Originally Posted by infoterror

I've noticed this as well. They assume nihilism must be rejection of everything, like the kneejerk reaction that considering nihilism so is in them. Nihilism is a mind-tuning. Few are ready for this (another reason why democracy is garbage).

The most exasperating thing is how these heathens refuse to listen or open up their closeminded non-independent minds. I had a long argument with three persons, who believed nihilism is awful and pointless, and should be banned because in their words, nihilism isnt creative and makes art and literature, and everything else pointless. I explained to them that the last century of art and music, was essentially inspired by nihilism more than anything else. But, since they have no knowledge of art and culture, they still didnt understand. Idiots.

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

could someone please explain to me the difference between "nihilism" and "chaos theory"