I just deliberately put what out there I thought could alleviate the recent plight of Nihilism within the Anarchist movement and didn't want for it not to do that. It's nothing that you did or anything.

Most Nihilists tend to be neurodivergent and afflicted by a certain degree of social alienation by that account. They're really not all that bad. The circles that Serafinski runs in, however, are fairly nefarious. By allying themselves with Individualists Tending toward the Wild, they're tacitly threatening to kill their political opponents. They have also done kind of a lot of manipulative things otherwise.

It's concerning, but only so much so, as, as I said before, most Nihilists are just only coping with what they've come to understand about the world so well. It'd be a purely philosophical difference without things like this going on.

The one final comment which I would say is that from the conversation I had with the person who discussed his philosophy of nihilism with me, he was not saddened by this way of seeing life at all. The idea of a happy nihilist is interesting. If he is still using the forum, I wonder if he will read this, and what he might add.

@Gus Lamarch
As I am not saying anything against him, and do have respect for him and his philosophy of egoism, I have decided to include his name, so that he may get a notification. It would be interesting to have him partake in the discussion.

I figured that it was Gus. Gus seems like a certain character depiction of mine, but I think is probably pretty alright. I'd doubt that he's in league with any of the political adversaries that I just can't seem to leave behind. Gus kind of gives me some perspective in that way.

I'll probably just tell him that that's how you could interpret Thus Spoke Zarathustra and we'll probably both conclude that Albert Camus both was and was not a Nihilist, but I'll leave him the floor for now.

I'm sure this has been discussed before but is it actually possible to be a nihilist other than in a posturing sense? Can any person be totally without values and transcend even psychopathy's amoral outlook? If you say 'I am a nihilist', presumably you are affirming a value system and ruling out the fact you are a nihilist... or am I just paradox struck at the moment?

I'll probably just tell him that that's how you could interpret Thus Spoke Zarathustra — thewonder

Have tired to read TSZ again this past fortnight. I don't know how people can read this, it is so dull and arch.

It's so very like how it is, but it does have it's moments.

I have met many posturing nihilists but I think that this is probably different to genuine nihilism. So, it will be interesting to see if Gus or anyone else who subscribes to that philosophy responds. However, I wonder how we really differentiate between the posturing and the genuine, especially in the context of the movement of romanticism and angry young men. If when I was thinking about nihilism in January I had gone out and got into some discussion about nihilism, I am sure that I may have been seen as posturing. I am also asking myself whether I was a posturer myself when I used to read and talk about Nietzsche.

I'm sure this has been discussed before but is it actually possible to be a nihilist other than in a posturing sense? Can any person be totally without values — Tom Storm

Sure, just not for long.

Sure, just not for long. — baker

:joke:

Is, for instance, philosophy driven by psychological forces such as insecurity, or any one or more of the large list of complexes psychologists have identified? — TheMadFool

I'm sure there are psychologists/psychiatrists who believe just that.

I also once read something peculiar in an essay about the meaning of life by a philosophy professor at the local university (not in English). Namely, he addressed some aspect of the meaning of life problem, and said that such and such was just "a sign of low self-esteem".

My own impressions on the link between philosophy and so-called mental illness (depression, suicide, or worse) is that it (the connection between the two) is, inter alia, about how emotionally invested we are in a particular philosophy.

Or conversely, how much of a philosophical dilettante one is. By this I mean that only a philosophical
dilettante would allow themselves to be affected by philosophizing.

Back in college, I had classmates who majored in philosophy. It always struck me as odd that they seemed so completely unaffected by their study of philosophy, so completely unchanged by it. In hindsight, it seems that was actually the whole point: to not let it (ie. philosophy) get to one.

However, more importantly, many people, including philosophers themselves, don't seem to realize the full import of philosophical positions, even those they themselves either directly or indirectly, established. To do that one needs to feel the idea whatever that idea is and this seems to rarely occur; probably because to comprehened a philosophical standpoint one needs to become an ideal observer and that, according to some, is only possible if one is dispassionate.

Someone once said that the difference between a religious man and a philosopher is that the religious man puts his life on the line for his beliefs, while the philosopher deals in expendable theories.

"Nihilism" seems the expedient hobby-horse du jur in this discussion to date and so the inconvenient prospect of optimism as a philo-pathological culprit has no takers.

As a species we're wired to deny that we're ever fucked - especially by our own wishful negligence. — 180 Proof

Our sophistries still trump our philosophies, no? Like religions still do ...

According to Nietzsche, it is only when nihilism is overcome that a culture can have a true foundation on which to thrive. He wished to hasten its coming only so that he could also hasten its ultimate departure.
— Wikipedia, ‘Friedrich Nietzsche’

So, what's the status of nihilism vis-à-vis humans? Is its "departure" imminent or has it already taken place? If it's still with us, how is humanity coping with it? What's the most promising philosophical idea in re a solution to nihilism? — TheMadFool

There are three parts to this, as described in The Three Metamorphoses of the Spirit is Zarathustra. When what was once a cultures source of strength becomes its weakness then it must reject those values. But if this is not in turn overcome, if negation of the old is not replaced with new affirmative values which will be a new source of strength, then there no new "yes" only "no, that is, nihilism.

This cycle repeats whenever existing values are no longer life affirming.

o summarize, in the simplest sense, should books on philosophy carry a statutory warning like cigarette packets do: SMOKING PHILOSOPHY KILLS? :chin: — TheMadFool

That would be appropriate only if it's truly possible to die of laughter.

My own impressions on the link between philosophy and so-called mental illness (depression, suicide, or worse) is that it (the connection between the two) is, inter alia, about how emotionally invested we are in a particular philosophy. At a minimum, becoming involved at the level of feelings with a certain philosophical theory/hypothesis makes one susceptible to all kinds of mental ailments from anger & frustration towards those who hold an opposing view (e.g. theists vs atheists) to total insanity/inanity. — TheMadFool

That doesn’t answer my question. How are you able to tell the difference between philosophy as a cause of those things (anger and frustration to insanity) and other pre-existing conditions (like certain personality types/traits for example) that cause those things?

You have a theory about philosophy as a cause but you haven’t at all demonstrated that it is.

I'm curious why you use the term 'optimism' rather than denial, short-sightedness, or the like.

As you can see, there are certain areas in philosophy (Nihilism, Absurdism) that have known negative effects on our mental well-being — TheMadFool

While I agree with you about nihilism, Absurdism is not so much a cause of negative mental well-being as it is a response to it; it's sort of a response to nihilism as well. The Absurdist thesis is that in light of the conflict between the human craving for "meaning" as in cosmic significance and the apparent lack thereof in the actual world, there are three possible responses: nihilism therefore suicide; irrational hope in blind faith of some kind; or, basically, saying "fuck it" and heroically carrying on with life anyways despite whatever terrifying meaningless void there might seem to be. Absurdism advocates the last of those.

That, I think, strikes an important note on this broader topic of "red zones": it's better to highlight ways out of them than to bar entry into them. Really, in a sense, I'd say that that's what all of philosophy is about: examining all of the ways that our common-sense understanding of the world can get flipped around on their heads and lead us into absurd conclusions, and then the ways that those are wrong, so that we end up back in a common-sense kind of worldview at the end, but are then more securely grounded there, knowing why to stay there and why not to be lead off into those "red zones".

Thanks for defending Absurdism. Camus gets a bad rep, partially because of Sartre, because he postulated that philosophical pessimism was just simply the case, whereas Sartre thought things had only become as such. I think that Sartre was right, but Camus didn't think that people should accept such a state of affairs, and, so, was not the "Nihilist" he was claimed to be.

The Postmodern condition clearly differs from that leading up to and during the Second World War, as well as in its aftermath, and, so, I could see how Camus came to his conclusions, but he did become somewhat unfairly isolated from the French intelligensia because of them.

If there was red zone for philosophy then it wouldn't be philosophy. Blaming philosophy for psychological problems is like blaming cars for car crashes. If someone wants to commit suicide cause philosophy "destroys" his religious beliefs for example and now he can't handle it well that's his own personal responsibility to find something else to believe in (maybe in his own self for start?). And why don't you mention how many people are saved from philosophy! How many escape from suicide Cause of philosophy. If people can't stand philosophy it's just cause they can't stand themselves eventually.

I use the latter in my definition of the former. Follow my links if you're interested in my full meaning.

I did, but looking again I notice the other topic title.

I think that I am in agreement with you that it is best to venture into the red zones of philosophy rather than steer clear of them. I am not speaking specifically of nihilism though. Of course, on a personal level, we may find that there are aspects of philosophy and life which are too much to think about at all. It may be that on an intuitive level, people may realise that topics and areas are best avoided. However, sometimes if there are red zones it is a sign that they are not completely avoidable but are acute, and will have to be explored at some point.