I wonder if we had a situation of war now whether people would be in many countries would be prepared to sacrifice for the supposed greater good as occurred in the two world wars. Obviously, it would be completely wrong because of nuclear weapons. However, I think that it may also be different because Christianity is not as dominant as it was in the early Twentieth century.

I don't actually know anyone who has fought in a war but do wonder if the idea of life after death makes it easier. I am inclined to think that the majority of people would not be willing to be martyrs now. The reason that I say that is because, if anything, there appears to be such a dread of death in our culture. I think that this fear has been so apparent in the threat of the pandemic.

I have seen this among people who claim . to be religious too. When I have spoken with them there fear does not really seem to be about the fear of death of an afterlife, but the whole notion of death, as not existing. I would say that we are now entering a time when many people combine aspects of Christianity, and other philosophies, including nihilism. However, I would say that many people do not name the philosophies and many do not really think through the nature of their ideas fully, but hold contradictory beliefs at a subconscious level.

This may not have the implications for the thread of wars which were at the heart of fighting for Christendom and the mythological fight for Armageddon. Of course there was the conflict between Christianity and Islam, as well as the war against terrorism. Of courset, the underlying subtext may have been the fight over oil.

However, I would say that there are specific dangers of the lack of clear conscious beliefs on a collective level. The very lack of clarity of thought could lead to an unconscious mass destruction.

The very lack of clarity of thought could lead to an unconscious mass destruction. — Jack Cummins

I believe this phrase summarizes well what Novatore believed to be the reason why we should adopt "nothing" as purpose.

Obviously, the "clarity" of what the "purpose" would be for individuals if this "Creative Nothing" were adopted, would be as vague as the Christian metaphysics - which is the point that Renzo criticizes -. The difference between the two lies in the fact that with nothing as purpose, you at least have the creative freedom to build your own "Christianity" - for the sake of understanding -.

Religions, create a whole cosmogony, theology, and even history - concepts like "Translatio Imperii" and "Translatio Studii" - that must be followed by their followers. This kills the individual sense and therefore, all human capacity.

The problem I find in Renzo's philosophy, is that we live in times where the establishment of nihilism has already been completely accomplished - in the West - and his philosophy - of Novatore - is one that has its maximum value "during" the process. Therefore, implementing it now would simply make this intellectual chaos that afflicts the contemporary world, worse.

I believe that the best option would be to register these same thoughts so that future generations - after the collapse - can, eventually, be illuminated again by the grace of knowledge that, comically, was the same that had destroyed their own world...

As Hemingway put it: "Our Nada who art in Nada, Nada be thy name."

"Our Nada who art in Nada, Nada be thy name." — Ciceronianus the White

The idea of Novatore is to use nothing to create something, not to turn nothing into something. Therefore, this quote, in the context of this discussion is wrong.

he idea of Novatore is to use nothing to create something, not to turn nothing into something. Therefore, this quote, in the context of this discussion is wrong. — Gus Lamarch

I haven't read him, so I'm sure you know better than I. But as God is described as "nada" according to this version of the Lord's Prayer in Hemingway's story, "nada" is God", and so "nada" is the creator of all. So, from nothing comes something--creatio ex nihilo. That of course isn't necessarily what Hemingway intended to express, but it's an interesting inference from the substitution of nothing for God in the prayer.

I haven't read him, so I'm sure you know better than I. But as God is described as "nada" according to this version of the Lord's Prayer in Hemingway's story, "nada" is God", and so "nada" is the creator of all. So, from nothing comes something--creatio ex nihilo. That of course isn't necessarily what Hemingway intended to express, but it's an interesting inference from the substitution of nothing for God in the prayer — Ciceronianus the White

The point is that Novatore is against this. It is not enough to have the freedom to substitute one word, one sense, for another, but the total and absolute freedom of any concept, and/or interpretation of all doctrinal and totalitarian traditions.

You can, for example, take this as a search for the psyche that existed in the minds of people who lived in Classical Antiquity - pre-Christianity -.