windsock

I said that nihilism is founded in realism, so I clearly believe it's realistic. My point is nihilism, as a term, deals with more concepts than the comparatively vague realism under which it exists.

__________________
RYM
Last.fm

Zhanteimi

So it goes.

__________________
Zhanteimi

LetsTalkMusic

Zhanteimi

the fuck you on about? this is page 5.

__________________
Zhanteimi

LetsTalkMusic

Mondo Bungle

nihilism is pointless

__________________

Mondo Bungle

fools out here caring heavily about not caring

__________________

windsock

Alright, let me outline my reasoning in full so I can collect my thoughts shattered across several pages into one piece:

I believe it's safe to say there is a definite connection that can be drawn between the existentialist interpretations of philosophical pessimism and nihilism. Frederich Nietzsche, who I think it is safe to say was the key contributor in defining nihilism, openly built his ideological framework on the works of Schopenhauer (commonly known as a modern father of philosophical pessimism). Furthermore, he was also heavily influenced by Greek philosophers such as the aforementioned Anaximander, who Nietzsche referred as being an archetypal pessimist. For these reasons I don't see how one cannot cannot see that nihilism was built on presuppositions made by the philosophical pessimists both in his time and of yore.

The most prominent influence Nietzsche took from philosophical pessimism also acts as his philosophy's backbone: the idea that human existence is overall meaningless. The reason such an idea was later classified as pessimistic is because it directly opposed the notion of a higher purpose, and thus a higher power. In our theo-centric world, such a opposition was seen as starkly negative in comparison with their more optimistic idea of a heavenly endgame. Does this not take into account outliers such as nihilists who believe the lack of such an endgame is a positive thing? Sure, but terms like pessimism were not created to suit an outlier as much as it was the majority. Humans have a tendency to view an afterlife where they get to see all of their dead family and friends as positive, while a simple death with no continuance is negative. What this all says about syntax and humankind in general is a different topic altogether.

My assumption is this semi-moralistic delineation was mainly born out of the still-continuing conflict between theists and atheists. Atheists are mainly connected by "realism", or the adherence to the idea that phenomena having scientifically explainable origins is common sense. However, the reason that theism remains so pervasive despite having a such a sense-based opponent is because theism is built in such a slippery framework. Try to think of a single phenomenon that happens in our known universe. Now try to see if that phenomenon can be explained away, in any capacity, by deist intervention aka magic. You may feel like you have a stone for a brain when you come to conclusion that the creation of the universe was not in fact created by the big bang but rather a giant bearded dude in a white robe snapping his fingers a few times, but it doesn't take away from the fact that some folks are bound to such conclusions, because religion is ultimately and annoyingly unfalsifiable. The reason why atheism makes personal sense to me is because it's ultimately a product of Occam's razor, as it's the most plausible conclusion I could make in relation to our universe's existence, the razor being formed around scientific knowledge as opposed to a theological belief. Theism and atheism are separated by their plausibility, not their possibility, and I'm simply more inclined to believe the plausibility no matter how much the world at large might see such a plausibility as a downer.

That all being said, I also do not believe philosophical pessimism and nihilism to be one in the same and have never expressed such an opinion. Nihilism, as defined by Nietzsche, commonly interpreted the absence of existential "meaning" in much more life-affirming terms, conflicting with the philo pessimist conclusion of this same concept of absence which tended to see general human progress as redundant. In short, Nietzsche opposed Schopenhauer almost as much as he took influence from him; he openly criticized the anti-life and self-denial of Schopenhauer's philosophy, which he classifies as destructive. Nietzsche speaks on affirmation in quite a different light than his instructor:

To me, philosophical pessimism and nihilism are two sides of the same existential coin. They deal with their perceived lack of meaning or existential endgame with pretty opposing interpretations of a human's true purpose among all of it. This doesn't change the fact that they're both made of silver.

I would like to make a correction of my answer to Frown's question posed towards me on whether or not a nihilist could could exist without being a philosophical pessimist and vice versa. I would say yes for reasons I've outlined previously in this post. The reason I said no initially is simply because the concept of "nihilism" potentially wouldn't have existed, at least not in its commonly understood form, without the conclusions made by philosophical pessimists, and although I still believe that, I will admit to interpreting the question wrong.

Continue being nihilists. I'm a nihilist. It doesn't make you morally condemnable or defeatist. I'm just recognizing the origins of this philosophy for what they pretty clearly are.

__________________
RYM
Last.fm

windsock

Bruh what have you contributed to this conversation other than exclaiming "god not real" to a group of atheists like it was some brilliant logical conclusion?

__________________
RYM
Last.fm

The Batlord

Same.

__________________

Frownland

I'm on page 12.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

windsock

Imma try and bring this back to the forefront if our conversation's over.

__________________
RYM
Last.fm