Isn't this just existentialism?

Um....no. While Existentialism and Nihilism touch on similar issues and topics and are often associated with the same philosophers, they are two separate types of philosophies in and of themselves.

While there is existential nihilism (which I believe is a type of nihilism, and not necessarily a type of existentialism) there isn't a view that neatly crafts the two ideologies together.

Here is a sample from "The Difference Between Existentialism, Nihilism, and Absurdism"

"Many philosophers have believed for centuries that there’s no intrinsic meaning in the universe. Here I’ll summarize three of the major responses to this belief.

Existentialism is the belief that through a combination of awareness, free will, and personal responsibility, one can construct their own meaning within a world that intrinsically has none of its own.

Nihilism is the belief that not only is there no intrinsic meaning in the universe, but that it’s pointless to try to construct our own as a substitute.

Absurdism is the belief that a search for meaning is inherently in conflict with the actual lack of meaning, but that one should both accept this and simultaneously rebel against it by embracing what life has to offer."

The Difference Between Existentialism, Nihilism, and Absurdism
https://danielmiessler.com/blog/difference-existentialism-nihilism-absurdism/#gs.74AGWhU


Anyways I found the follwoing videos on Youtube that do a halfway decent job of explaining existentialism and/or nihilism:

Existentialism and Nihilism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtabjzJNwZ4
Introduction to Nihilism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ajv-RrQs4o

Alrighty then.

I was talking about this so-called "horror philosophy" particularly in reference to Lovecraft and if you have read any of his works, you would understand my reference to existentialism, but anyhoot...

I wouldn't include Rick and Morty under the placard of "Horror Philosophy". There are, undoubtedly, similarities, such as the stance that life is meaningless and purposeless, etc., but Rick and Morty takes a comedic approach rather than one of traumatic horror. I think a TV show that better encapsulates Horror Philosophy would be True Detective (at least the first season).

I've read some of Lovecraft's works but perhaps not enough to know exactly the passages your talking about. Even if I did it is probable that I wouldn't remember it without an eidetic memory because it has been ages since I read anything by him and Lovecraft's work can sometimes be almost as long winded as Stephen King's 'It' novel.

Perhaps you can lookup and post the specific parts you are referring to in the hopes that either I or others know what you are talking about.

I'll have to look into and see if what you say is true about True Detective when I have a moment, but the purpose of my OP and argument isn't really about whether Rick and Morty or True Detective better encapsulates horror philosophy or nihilism but more about the lack of appreciation of nihilism altogether.

It might be a bit of a hasty generalization to say this but nihilism is kind of the antithesis to the Western culture/Abrahamic religions thesis, and the conflict we are seeing right now between the two is juts a ongoing resolution between Descartian "Thinking thing" philosophy (which stresses the "I" in our worldview perspective of things) and Eastern/Dharmic's philosophy where the "other" is more stressed, or at least more stressed than our own.

At any rate I think that the existence of nihilist philosophy shows some of the weakness in other modern philosophies.

I think a TV show that better encapsulates Horror Philosophy would be True Detective (at least the first season). — Maw

...And True Detective was effectively based on philosophical literature, like Thomas Ligotti's The Conspiracy Against the Human Race, Ray Brassier's Nihil Unbound, and David Benatar's Better Never To Have Been.

I do think my negative outlook on life was "eventual" in some sense, as I have a disposition to see flaws and have always been skeptical. If it wasn't this it would have been that, but it was True Detective that formally introduced me to pessimistic philosophy. The show is edgy af but then again so is some of the pessimistic literature (also I agree with Maw that the first season is superior than the second).

I'm also in debt to True Detective for getting me into doom metal and psychedelic rock. For example, this song by The Black Angels:



In regards to "horror" philosophy in general, I do find it to be cathartic and revealing in some ways, but I am also fundamentally repelled by the idea of actually enjoying horror if we're being philosophical. If you're enjoying horror, it means you're still considering it entertainment. In my opinion, it's not truly horror unless you actually legitimately wished you hadn't read that book or watched that movie.

That's what people like Nietzsche, Freud and Zapffe were going on about, how people can't handle too much truth, that truth isn't comfortable. I think Ligotti once said that truth will leave you empty handed on the side of the road wondering why you even pursued it in the first place. It destroys your beliefs, illusions, and securities and leaves you naked and afraid. This is ultimately why I am very hesitant to explain some of my philosophical beliefs to other people, as I don't know how they'll react. For all I know they might react in a very poor way, similar to how I reacted when I was initially introduced to pessimism (which is embarrassing looking back).

To be honest, valuing truth even when it's horrible is just a coping mechanism, I think. It's a transcendental (escape) "I'm holier than thou" attitude to make up for the fact that it's not exactly comfortable to believe these sorts of things about life. I know Cioran once said in The Book of Delusions:

"A regret understood by no one: the regret to be a pessimist. It’s not easy to be on the wrong foot with life."

Now of course I will admit that modalities like horror can be cathartic, and that's fine. But if you go beyond catharsis and start glorifying horror and pessimism (as shows like True Detective have the tendency to do), you end up leaving behind the essence of pessimism in favor of a shallow aesthetic.

It's telling, to me at least, that the ending of the first season of True Detective was the way it was. It ended on a "positive" and "hopeful" note. People were sucked into the show because of its novel pessimism and cathartic nature but ultimately there was an expectation that it would end in an affirmative vindication of life. And that's exactly what it did, and this is exactly why it's ultimately shallow. Without a good reason to affirm life and existence in general, the act of affirmation becomes a bitch-slap cop-out.

The other thing that tends to repel me from "horror" philosophy is that it almost seems like sometimes the writers are intentionally trying to construe things to be horrific. Which, if done for the sake of intellectual exploration, is fine. But certainly I think pessimism has been a marginalized philosophy that hasn't been taken seriously, and one of the consequences of this is that it hasn't been subjected to any serious objections (perhaps there are none?) So I think if there's anything to criticize the "pessimists" for, it would be the tendency to exaggerate certain aspects of life. Pessimism has been going under the radar since practically its "inception" in literature like Ecclesiastes and hasn't been given the time is deserves, which means it's been marginalized but also means that there hasn't been any real opposition (except perhaps Nietzsche or Camus) to draw the line in the sand and say "that's pessimism enough, now you're taking things too far". An example of this would be Zapffe's contemporary Herman Tønnesen who wanted to "out-Zapffe" Zapffe. Is this really the search for an unambiguous description of existence, or was Tønnesen just trying to compete with Zapffe and see who could be more pessimistic?

It's telling, to me at least, that the ending of the first season of True Detective was the way it was. It ended on a "positive" and "hopeful" note. People were sucked into the show because of its novel pessimism and cathartic nature but ultimately there was an expectation that it would end in an affirmative vindication of life. And that's exactly what it did, and this is exactly why it's ultimately shallow. Without a good reason to affirm life and existence in general, the act of affirmation becomes a bitch-slap cop-out. — darthbarracuda

Yes, it went from the nihilistic to the romantic pretty quick at the end. It was never all that deep intellectually - you're not going to get that on TV - but in terms of mood, it was there until the silly ending. Anyway, by giving anything a name, you're already searching for meaning. And Ligotti, Zapffe, Benatar et al write (or wrote) books on the subject. That takes time, effort and great commitment. Why bother?

The real nihilists we've never heard of. They did nothing and are dead or dying.

That takes time, effort and great commitment. Why bother? — Baden

I'm not entirely sure. Presumably they find value and fulfillment in writing about pessimism. Probably it's a mix of catharsis, distraction, and genuine moral concern.

"I do think my negative outlook on life was "eventual" in some sense, as I have a disposition to see flaws and have always been skeptical. If it wasn't this it would have been that, but it was True Detective that formally introduced me to pessimistic philosophy. The show is edgy af but then again so is some of the pessimistic literature (also I agree with Maw that the first season is superior than the second).

I'm also in debt to True Detective for getting me into doom metal and psychedelic rock. For example, this song by The Black Angels:"
—darthbarracuda


Ok, I when you put it that way it makes me really want to check the show. :)


"In regards to "horror" philosophy in general, I do find it to be cathartic and revealing in some ways, but I am also fundamentally repelled by the idea of actually enjoying horror if we're being philosophical. If you're enjoying horror, it means you're still considering it entertainment. In my opinion, it's not truly horror unless you actually legitimately wished you hadn't read that book or watched that movie."
—darthbarracuda

I don't think "horror philosophy" or even horror itself is really about horror. I mean if you are able to watch about fifteen to twenty minutes of "three guys and a hammer" or some of the worst videos on heavy.com on street justice, Chechen war, ISIS then you have a better stomach for that kind of stuff than me. Most people can watch horror and crime shows because they either know it isn't real or perhaps they have seen enough stuff where it does no longer seems real to them. In ancient Rome and a few other civilizations people used to be entertained by watching people beat each other to death or get killed in some other fashion, but I think it more likely becomes real horror if it is someone's own life on the line than someone else's.

But you are right in that there is kind of a thin line where something goes from being entertaining to a bit unsettling and from that to completely unbearable, however something doesn't have to 'real horror' since such things are completely unmarketable except perhaps to those with the most jaded or oddest of tastes. And while the rest of us can only be entertained by "watered down" horror, I think the reasons for this are sort of obvious if one stops and thinks about it.



"That's what people like Nietzsche, Freud and Zapffe were going on about, how people can't handle too much truth, that truth isn't comfortable. I think Ligotti once said that truth will leave you empty handed on the side of the road wondering why you even pursued it in the first place. It destroys your beliefs, illusions, and securities and leaves you naked and afraid. This is ultimately why I am very hesitant to explain some of my philosophical beliefs to other people, as I don't know how they'll react. For all I know they might react in a very poor way, similar to how I reacted when I was initially introduced to pessimism (which is embarrassing looking back).

To be honest, valuing truth even when it's horrible is just a coping mechanism, I think. It's a transcendental (escape) "I'm holier than thou" attitude to make up for the fact that it's not exactly comfortable to believe these sorts of things about life. I know Cioran once said in The Book of Delusions:

"A regret understood by no one: the regret to be a pessimist. It’s not easy to be on the wrong foot with life." "
—darthbarracuda

While knowing truth isn't always pleasant, it has it's uses. It is kind of like that old show on TV called "Dirty Jobs", not everyone has the tolerance to do such work. And even if most people that have the tolerance for them would be rather be doing something else it still has to be done by someone that is desperate for some money. I don't know if pessimist/skeptics are the "holier than thou" or the pooper scoopers of philosophy but I think they serve some kind of purpose



"Now of course I will admit that modalities like horror can be cathartic, and that's fine. But if you go beyond catharsis and start glorifying horror and pessimism (as shows like True Detective have the tendency to do), you end up leaving behind the essence of pessimism in favor of a shallow aesthetic.

It's telling, to me at least, that the ending of the first season of True Detective was the way it was. It ended on a "positive" and "hopeful" note. People were sucked into the show because of its novel pessimism and cathartic nature but ultimately there was an expectation that it would end in an affirmative vindication of life. And that's exactly what it did, and this is exactly why it's ultimately shallow. Without a good reason to affirm life and existence in general, the act of affirmation becomes a bitch-slap cop-out.

The other thing that tends to repel me from "horror" philosophy is that it almost seems like sometimes the writers are intentionally trying to construe things to be horrific. Which, if done for the sake of intellectual exploration, is fine. But certainly I think pessimism has been a marginalized philosophy that hasn't been taken seriously, and one of the consequences of this is that it hasn't been subjected to any serious objections (perhaps there are none?) So I think if there's anything to criticize the "pessimists" for, it would be the tendency to exaggerate certain aspects of life. Pessimism has been going under the radar since practically its "inception" in literature like Ecclesiastes and hasn't been given the time is deserves, which means it's been marginalized but also means that there hasn't been any real opposition (except perhaps Nietzsche or Camus) to draw the line in the sand and say "that's pessimism enough, now you're taking things too far". An example of this would be Zapffe's contemporary Herman Tønnesen who wanted to "out-Zapffe" Zapffe. Is this really the search for an unambiguous description of existence, or was Tønnesen just trying to compete with Zapffe and see who could be more pessimistic?"
—darthbarracuda

What you said reminds me of how I kind of like watching the old CSI shows instead of the new ones. In the old ones you have ugly office and morgues with terrible lighting and paint on the walls from the 40's-50's and everywhere people went it seemed dark and depressing for some reason, but if you think about what it might be like for cops working in a underfunded decaying city area it might not be that far from the truth. However in the new CSI shows the offices all look like something out of a cross between silicon valley/Sci-Fi show, everyone that works there is obviously a model of some sort, and every house they go to is a beach side mansion even if the person that owns it works as a janitor.

I guess my argument is don't fault pessimism/skepticism (or maybe the shows with such themes since I'm not sure which you really find fault with) with being less than perfect or too far from it. I mean you can find fault with a show for having too many flaws (or even a type of philosophy for that matter), but it is sort of a given that when you have a branch of philosophy that is mostly about pointing out the flaws in all other philosophies that it too will have plenty of warts of it's own. Maybe we are supposed to kind of like it even with it's warts and all or maybe something else, but I'm out of coffee so I think this will have to do for my reply for today.

Presumably they find value and fulfillment in writing about pessimism. — darthbarracuda

Exactly.

"Presumably they find value and fulfillment in writing about pessimism.
— darthbarracuda

Exactly."
— Baden
It might also help if someone has had a near death experience before and/or similar events happen to them.

In my twenties I found out that alcohol (especially mixed drinks) where a effective way to forgot all the problems of the world and get generally hosed up. I guesstimate I likely blacked out on more than a dozen occasions before I took my adventures just a little bit too far. At the time I knew someone who could make GHB and while taking it and drinking (a mixture of zima, wild irish rose, cheap wine, gold crown royal, and a little bit of some other stuff I can't remember) I quickly became very, very drunk very quickly. What I didn't know was that the batch of GHB I was using was more than 3-4 times stronger so I overcompensated with the amount I took and the strength of the drinks (which was too week the last time I did it) and created a recipe for disaster.

It took only an hour before I first started feeling the effects of an oncoming blackout; which I would have noticed if it didn't come on so fast and I wasn't so drunk. The issue wasn't that I just wasn't able to walk straight, the issue was when I tried to walk straight there would be momentary lapses of conscience where I wasn't even aware of what I was doing. It was kind of like watching a movie or TV and and the screen goes black for a moment and then when it reappears a couple seconds later 10-20 seconds had past instead of the couple that seemed to. If I was smart I might have stopped drinking and went home but I didn't however it didn't take that long for me to realize how badly I messed up because about twenty minutes later I reached the apex of my expedition.

I don't know about anyone else but whenever I black out there is something I call "a moment of clarity" (and what I have heard some people call "drinking yourself sober") where it seemed I was almost even more sober than when I wasn't drinking. Even my vision seem to get better when this happened. I have no idea how it happened but my guess it was ditch effort of the body to momentary fight the effects of alcohol by flooding the itself with whatever endorphin's (and anything else) in order to help get me somewhere safe. Whenever this use to happen I knew it was a clear signal from my body that I was going to black out very soon, and would find some half way safe to crawl into for 2-4 hours at least. While the "moment of clarity" during that event allowed me to know that I was super drunk and about to black out it all happened way too fast for me to do anything about it.

While the specifics of some of what happened are more than I have the time to write about at this moment. I will say at a certain point it seemed as if I had "no pain". Maybe it was that I was feeling too euphoric to notice the pain or something else but I can reasonably say that I can't remember ever another situation before or after that which I felt so devoid of pain as that moment.

However it wasn't really a happy event since just as I became devoid of pain it also felt like I was both losing control of my body and becoming paralyzed. Up until this time I sort of had a fantasy that perhaps it was possible for there to be a way to get so drunk that I would become oblivious to the pain and troubles around me, yet aware enough to enjoy such a sensation without blacking out first. After that I knew that such a experience sort of exists, yet it far to close too OD'ing to ever be pursued under any normal circumstances.

And it wasn't just the feeling of paralyses, it was the feeling of blackness and me sinking into my own mind and body and getting trapped in it. The only thing I can compare it too is if someone is venturing into one of those narrow underground caves by themselves and they get stuck and don't have a flashlight. I also know my sensations isn't that far from those sensations because when I described them to someone who did get stuck in a cave and passed out from it, they pleaded with me to stop because phobia from their own experience made it unbearable to even think about it.

The mind and body instinctively fear darkness and getting trapped by something, but combined it is the kind of terror that quickly overcomes the rational mind attempts to overcome the situation. I eventually wondered somewhere I didn't know, loss my glasses and backpack, puked my guts out (luckily while I was face down and not face up), and withing a half-hour to an hour regained consciences. I don't know if I didn't keep moving, laid down, and/or didn't puke my guts out that I may have never regained conscience but it all was too close of a call for me to try it again.

I guess the moral of story is even though every day depression, anxiety, duḥkha, etc. is not that great, the alternatives could be far worse. It is kind of the "Reverse - Grass is greener on the other side", when one is in a horrible environment but becomes somewhat acclimated to it, one can grow to fear the alternatives because A) they might not be any better and/or worse B) even if it not worse, if it is no better it will require one to become acclimated to it as well. Or it might be like the old saying "the Devil you know".

However maybe one just becomes a coward for some time after experiencing such things. I don't know if an eternity of paralyses and blackness is worse than spending an eternity of rolling a rock up a hill, but my guess is that it isn't worse. The people who where described as:

"Presumably they find value and fulfillment in writing about pessimism."
— darthbarracuda

Could be doing it because that is all they know what to do and/or it serves as a means of distraction. Maybe they do it merely to pay the bills, not end up on the street and then in jail, and then have to become someone's girlfriend in order not to get beaten up by stronger inmates around them. I'm not saying that it is a given there isn't 'noble' reason in their writing and/or other work, I'm just saying that the human condition more often than not makes it impossible NOT to do anything without someone ending up in worse predicaments. Even if this fear of worse predicaments could be nothing more than for cowardly reasons.

In my experience of studying philosophy, it seems one of the most disliked positions has been nihilism and post modernism, even if the former isn't really that much different than regular old skepticism. — dclements

As I read this, some great passages in Hegel came to mind. This one in particular seems to capture "nihilism" in way that does justice to its allure. It's a Satanic/Romantic position. As someone else mentioned, a truly "nothing" position is worthless. What the less eloquent Adult Swim nihilist might want to say is something about freedom, self-posession, and transcendence of everything finite. But here's Hegel on The Irony. Sartre, Stirner, and Nietzsche all seem fused together here. Hegel just passes through, having (no doubt) tried this perspective and found it unsatisfying.

Now so far as concerns the closer connection of Fichte’s propositions with one tendency of irony, we need in this respect emphasize only the following points about this irony, namely that [first] Fichte sets up the ego as the absolute principle of all knowing, reason, and cognition, and at that the ego that remains throughout abstract and formal. Secondly, this ego is therefore in itself just simple, and, on the one hand, every particularity, every characteristic, every content is negated in it, since everything is submerged in this abstract freedom and unity, while, on the other hand, every content which is to have value for the ego is only put and recognized by the ego itself. Whatever is, is only by the instrumentality of the ego, and what exists by my instrumentality I can equally well annihilate again.

Now if we stop at these absolutely empty forms which originate from the absoluteness of the abstract ego, nothing is treated in and for itself and as valuable in itself, but only as produced by the subjectivity of the ego. But in that case the ego can remain lord and master of everything, and in no sphere of morals, law, things human and divine, profane and sacred, is there anything that would not first have to be laid down by the ego, and that therefore could not equally well be destroyed by it. Consequently everything genuinely and independently real becomes only a show, not true and genuine on its own account or through itself, but a mere appearance due to the ego in whose power and caprice and at whose free disposal it remains. To admit or cancel it depends wholly on the pleasure of the ego, already absolute in itself simply as ego. Now thirdly, the ego is a living, active individual, and its life consists in making its individuality real in its own eyes and in those of others, in expressing itself, and bringing itself into appearance. For every man, by living, tries to realize himself and does realize himself.

Now in relation to beauty and art, this acquires the meaning of living as an artist and forming one’s life artistically. But on this principle, I live as an artist when all my action and my expression in general, in connection with any content whatever, remains for me a mere show and assumes a shape which is wholly in my power. In that case I am not really in earnest either with this content or, generally, with its expression and actualization. For genuine earnestness enters only by means of a substantial interest, something of intrinsic worth like truth, ethical life, etc., – by means of a content which counts as such for me as essential, so that I only become essential myself in my own eyes in so far as I have immersed myself in such a content and have brought myself into conformity with it in all my knowing and acting. When the ego that sets up and dissolves everything out of its own caprice is the artist, to whom no content of consciousness appears as absolute and independently real but only as a self-made and destructible show, such earnestness can find no place, since validity is ascribed only to the formalism of the ego.

True, in the eyes of others the appearance which I present to them may be regarded seriously, in that they take me to be really concerned with the matter in hand, but in that case they are simply deceived, poor limited creatures, without the faculty and ability to apprehend and reach the loftiness of my standpoint. Therefore this shows me that not everyone is so free (i.e. formally free)[52] as to see in everything which otherwise has value, dignity, and sanctity for mankind just a product of his own power of caprice, whereby he is at liberty either to grant validity to such things, to determine himself and fill his life by means of them, or the reverse. Moreover this virtuosity of an ironical artistic life apprehends itself as a divine creative genius for which anything and everything is only an unsubstantial creature, to which the creator, knowing himself to be disengaged and free from everything, is not bound, because he is just as able to destroy it as to create it. In that case, he who has reached this standpoint of divine genius looks down from his high rank on all other men, for they are pronounced dull and limited, inasmuch as law, morals, etc., still count for them as fixed, essential, and obligatory. So then the individual, who lives in this way as an artist, does give himself relations to others: he lives with friends, mistresses, etc; but, by his being a genius, this relation to his own specific reality, his particular actions, as well as to what is absolute and universal, is at the same time null; his attitude to it all is ironical.
— Hegel

And it wasn't just the feeling of paralyses, it was the feeling of blackness and me sinking into my own mind and body and getting trapped in it.... The mind and body instinctively fear darkness and getting trapped by something, but combined it is the kind of terror that quickly overcomes the rational mind attempts to overcome the situation. I eventually wondered somewhere I didn't know, loss my glasses and backpack, puked my guts out (luckily while I was face down and not face up), and withing a half-hour to an hour regained consciences. — dclements

Now, while I have never drank alcohol except for Chianti wine from Tuscany and the occasional social dribble to pretend I resembled the morons I was forced to socialise with, I have found it to be a lot more satisfying being brutally honest while in control of all my faculties, facing the terror with integrity. I think you are right when you say that over time, as one continuously seeks alcohol or other types of methods to escape or paralyse themselves from facing whatever it is that they are afraid of, tricking themselves into thinking that if they face this reality then they will experience something devastating (when it is the exact opposite), they become dependent on objects like alcohol or recreational drugs or other people like their partner or social customs etc in order to continue avoiding. The myth of Sisyphus.

I will admit after reading that passage, I will have to reread it a few more time to be sure what he means by it. As a person with ADHD I have a hard time reading certain things even if they are just slightly long winded (which is what nearly all great philosophers have to do if they want to be thought of as more than just amateurs), which is why I like talking/arguing with regular people who sometimes study the greats instead of sticking my nose in certain books. At any rate I'm glad that you shared that with me but if it is possible could you explain what it means to you in layman terms if you can. If you don't have the time I'm ok with that too. :D

"Now, while I have never drank alcohol except for Chianti wine from Tuscany and the occasional social dribble to pretend I resembled the morons I was forced to socialise with, I have found it to be a lot more satisfying being brutally honest while in control of all my faculties, facing the terror with integrity. I think you are right when you say that over time, as one continuously seeks alcohol or other types of methods to escape or paralyse themselves from facing whatever it is that they are afraid of, tricking themselves into thinking that if they face this reality then they will experience something devastating (when it is the exact opposite), they become dependent on objects like alcohol or recreational drugs or other people like their partner or social customs etc in order to continue avoiding. The myth of Sisyphus."
—TimeLine

I mostly agree with you, but I know even if I don't drink I have to use some other form of romanticism/escapism every so often to deal with reality; and I believe this is almost true of everyone. Whether someone tries to keep their vices to a minimum, like the Victorians tried to, or feed there indulgences as much as their hearts desires; we are often faced with the nearly identical problem which is mainly maintaining our biofeedback pain/pleasure principle good enough that we do not lose our little minds. Or perhaps for some just maintain it long enough to go out with a 'bang'.

Perhaps the biggest problem is just focusing on that one thing alone seems to never work in and of itself and only by having an elaborate system of beliefs, plans, goals, game theory, hedonistic calculus, etc.can one possibly begin to have some control. However the more complicated the system or plan the harder it is to maintain; or at least it is that way for adults, for children/teenagers it is often getting immediate wants and needs or at least it is that until they get bored with it. Maybe as adults we often have already experienced enough of our petty desires that it just becomes more work and/or more expensive to do something we haven't done before. Or at least haven't done it enough yet.

That nihilism, and the thinkers who circle around, mistake meaning or value for states of the world.

Sartre, for example, treats meaning as if it's​ a human creation. Rather than understanding meaning or value is an infinite expressed by a state itself, Sartre treats it like it's nothing more than a human whim.

Hegel's point is nihilism, "subjectivism" and maybe even scepticism amount to a rejection of meaning as expessed by things-in-themselves. These positions either consider the meaning of others (and everything else) is only them or has no presence at all.

For the artist (or philosopher!), who is dedicated to creating things of meaning outside of themsleves (e.g. for others to see, to record meaning in an object beyond themsleves, etc.), it is a deeply ironic postion to hold.

Sure. I'm happy to. He's basically sketching a person who feels above all things and detached from every "finite" or fixed identity. This person sees all laws and sacred cows as mere human constructions to which he does not owe respect. He also feels that his essence is "infinite" in the sense that whatver persona he chooses to wear is ultimately a lie or only a partial truth. So he takes an ironic view toward everything serious. He gets his kicks from the sense of himself as a genius or someone transcendent. He therefore has a certain contempt for anyone still narrow-minded enough to believe in anything other than the transcendent ego that creates and destroys gods or ideals in the first place.

Basically Hegel sketched Stirner's longwinded book in a few long-winded paragraphs. He goes on to criticize this position (called The Irony at the time), but he does acknowledge that it is one of the higher stages in the evolution of self-consciousness.

we are often faced with the nearly identical problem which is mainly maintaining our biofeedback pain/pleasure principle good enough that we do not lose our little minds. Or perhaps for some just maintain it long enough to go out with a 'bang' — dclements

I have no idea what you are talking about but it sounds to me more like you are screaming for attention because of an absence of love.

Sartre, for example, treats meaning as if it's​ a human creation. Rather than understanding meaning or value is an infinite expressed by a state itself, Sartre treats it like it's nothing more than a human whim. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Just remind me where Sartre says something like this, would you?

That nihilism, and the thinkers who circle around, mistake meaning or value for states of the world.

Sartre, for example, treats meaning as if it's​ a human creation. Rather than understanding meaning or value is an infinite expressed by a state itself, Sartre treats it like it's nothing more than a human whim.

Hegel's point is nihilism, "subjectivism" and maybe even scepticism amount to a rejection of meaning as expessed by things-in-themselves. These positions either consider the meaning of others (and everything else) is only them or has no presence at all.

For the artist (or philosopher!), who is dedicated to creating things of meaning outside of themsleves (e.g. for others to see, to record meaning in an object beyond themsleves, etc.), it is a deeply ironic postion to hold.

—TheWillowOfDarkness

I think I get part of what you are saying, but it is kind of confusing because the word "meaning" could be used to reference a real physical thing, or it could be used to reference the mental construct we create in order to reference a physical thing. It is kind of like in computer science you sometimes have memory locations that hold data that is to be used and at other times it is used to hold a information that is used to point to a location of data (or sometimes to another pointer as well), and to mistake a location holding a pointer to have data or a data location as a pointer can really screw things up.

Anyways the problem I'm trying to understand here is whether you are talking about that they rejected a certain aspect of reality itself (which I guess could happen but I'm not sure why) or if trying to undermine certain aspects of the labels or system of labels we use to reference everything. If I was to hazard a guess I would say I believe they are doing the latter since if you wish to question Western ideology and Abrahamic religions, you would want to find something wrong with it and get others to believe you when you say there is a issue with it. Also saying there is a problem with a the-thing-in-and-of-itself is tricky because reality just is and if there is a real problem it is the job of the technical sciences to find a solution since it's not up to philosophy to try and resolve it. Or at least this is what I gather from reading what you said in your post.

If I can jump in, I think the best critique of the The Irony (along Hegelian lines) is simply that we crave something real and objective and social. We can pretend that "nothing is good or bad but thinking makes its so," but this isn't the truth of our nature. However flexible we are in terms of our religion and ideology, there's an animal/emotional foundation that is common to all of us. We can only partially create ourselves. As I currently read it, Hegel assimilated this vision of radical freedom so that it became social rather than individual. God himself, evolving within and through us, was the radically free agent creating himself. And we could participate in that through philosophy, religion, and art. Of course (in the background) he successfully positions himself as the cutting edge of God's self-consciousness. So he doesn't really sacrifice the same kind of "royal" position (of the Ironist) on a personal level.

Anyways the problem I'm trying to understand here is whether you are talking about that they rejected a certain aspect of reality itself (which I guess could happen but I'm not sure why) or if trying to undermine certain aspects of the labels or system of labels we use to reference everything. If I was to hazard a guess I would say I believe they are doing the latter since if you wish to question Western ideology and Abrahamic religions, you would want to find something wrong with it and get others to believe you when you say there is a issue with it. — dclements

The position of the ironist would be that all these Abrahamic religions are just monkey breath, at least in terms of their authority over him. But the ironist goes farther than this. The ironist in that passage would feel the same way about feminism, environmentalism, sexism, racism, democracy, science, rationality, etc.,etc. It's the end of all holy words and concepts in the name of the ego who has recognized itself as the bestower of value and creator of all gods, be they traditional or newfangled and abstract (social justice). Basically everyone hates this A-hole. He is impiety incarnate. But, as mentioned above, he's also a cartoon. Because there are certain things that we just can't help but value. Otherwise we wouldn't be socialized enough to attain the level of abstraction involved, language being inherently social.

I have no idea what you are talking about but it sounds to me more like you are screaming for attention because of an absence of love.
—TimeLine

No, I'm trying to be serious and neither am I just crying out for attention; or at least I'm not crying out for attention any more than anyone else wasting their time here.

What I'm talking about is stuff I believe they teach to college kids taking psychology 101 in that they compare the human mind to a feedback control system used in electrical engineering. This is sort of similar to comparing the human mind to a computer, however a feedback control system and a computer are similar in some ways and different in others. For one feedback can be purely analogy where as computer are almost always pure digital.

Feedback
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedback

Maybe it wasn't the best analogy,but it wasn't moon bat stuff unless I I happen to be really tired while writing it.

It's more a logical analysis of his work than a specific claim he makes.

In his earlier philosophy it's most obvious, but he also struggles with the metaphysical move pretty much all the way through.

He treats meaning like it is a human creation, not just in the sense of we always have freedom of meaning because it is a production of ourselves (which is true), but also in the sense there is no meaning present or produced prior to us or outside someone's experience.

It's why he has such a difficult time with justifying ethics. Without someone making a choice, there effectively can't be an ethic to speak of. The ethical meaning simply cannot be expessed yet.

When presented with an ethical dilemma, what am I to do? No doubt I have already chosen (to have the dilemma) and must make a choice (my eventually response), but there is no meaning or significance to guide me. I cannot say: "Well, X matters, so I am obligated do Y rather than Z. In the end (speaking of his early philosophy) Sartre just goes with the cop out of: "There is only what is chosen."

Sartre gives a great account of power. No matter what reasoning I give, I am the one doing it. It's bad faith for me to say: "I must because..." for it denies my responsibility in causing events. Even if I am behaving ethically (e.g. X matters), I'm the one doing it. I choose to make that world rather than it being a necessary outcome of whatever ethic (e.g God's authority, social demands, that X matters, etc.) is expessed.

In terms of value or ethics though, it's all but empty. Sure, it's true what happens will only be my choice, but that's no better than saying, "tomorrow, something will happen." It doesn't help with anything. If I'm dealing with value or ethics, I want to know what is important , so I can make a better choice about my actions. To say, "Well, there is nothing to say on the matter, there is only what is chosen" is only to miss and ignore the point entirely.

With regards to "meaning," it's both. It applies to either logical truths which expesses meaning outside someone's experience or to existing objects.

Meaning of real, physical objects is related to mental construction because if we are to be aware of an existing object, we must have the appropriate mental construction.

If there's is a bookshelf in front of me and my brain gives me the experience of a spoon, I won't know about the bookshelf at all.

So if an object is to exist, then it must express meaning which may be known (i.e. mentally constructed), else it is not defined. Given the existence of things other than myself, expression of meanings must extend beyond myself. Meanings must be more than just what I think, feel or perceive.

In reducing the world to mental construction and choice, Sartre's metaphysic denies the expression of meaning in objects themselves. Supposedly, it cannot be true that the bookshelf exists and means of it's own accord. Without me, without my choice, there can be no such meaning expressed.

Which is where Hegel falls back into fantasy of unity. In the face of meaninglessness, he went back to the fiction of outside nature, again returning to the fiction that power (and helplessness) and freedom are outside of man.

He didn't realise it is not commonality which defines meaning, but individuality. It is not that there is a common animal/emotional foundation, but rather we are individual animals with emotions, which expresses partcular ethical significance. By our individuality, we are objective and social.

We've been the radically free agents all along, but it simply doesn't give us the power we like to imagine. We have to deal with others, our bodily limits, the world in which we live, our ethical obligations. Radical freedom is not the ability to do anything and create a world without problem or challenge.

Hegel is pretty complicated. I don't at all agree that he pointed outside of man.

The History of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of Freedom.
...
Spirit is essentially the result of its own activity; its activity is the transcending of immediate, simple, unreflected existence, — the negation of that existence, and the returning into itself.
...
We have already discussed the final aim of the progression. The principles of the successive phases of Spirit that animate the Nations in a necessitated gradation, are themselves only steps in the development of the one universal Spirit, which through them elevates and completes itself to a self-comprehending totality. — Hegel

He's probably most vulnerable when he generalizes his personal experience to all of mankind.

It's safer to say that the history of a certain kind of individual is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom. Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy are the first tyrants to be toppled. Eventually even the sacred words of the grown-ups are declawed and filed among the other deactivated idols. But reality itself is not declawed. We need food. Hunger is not an illusion to be dispelled by critical philosophy. Consciousness of freedom is glorious. I'd even call it my religion. But it doesn't solve the problem of life as a whole. So I'm inclined to talk about the limits of talk itself. Yes, we are linguistic creatures who need good software, but we also need hardware. Cancer has no respect for Hegel. It will grudgingly acknowledge radiation, though. We live on, conscious of our radical freedom in theory, while constraining ourselves nevertheless in practice, precisely because we are attached to living on. I can't do everything that I think is "without sin" (though a sin to others) because it still might get me killed. I'm a god tied to a dog, or rather a dog-god. If the dog dies, god does too. The "master" can only enjoy himself as such through the "vessel" of an essentially slavish (because living, natural) dog. The grand parasite is literally nothing without its host.

We've been the radically free agents all along, but it simply doesn't give us the power we like to imagine. We have to deal with others, our bodily limits, the world in which we live, our ethical obligations. Radical freedom is not the ability to do anything and create a world without problem or challenge. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I'd translate this by "radical freedom is not unlimited power." Of course I agree. As I understand this freedom, it's just freedom from "ideal" or "moral" constraints and not from physical constraints. What I always have in mind is cacophony of political/religious rhetoric that makes demands, launches accusations, sews confusion, etc. This rhetoric is neutralized by the "free" self-consciousness I have in mind. The "magic" of the demanding/accusing other is vaporized. The game of symbol manipulation and concept warfare is seen from a "higher" place. (I just mean conceptually and emotionally.)
Or we might say that the battle is in our Hegelian belly, the noise of subselves who don't know that they've been synthesized into a (more) harmonious unity.

The grades which Spirit seems to have left behind it, it still possesses in the depths of its present. — Hegel

I'm speaking of the first person experience of viewing an argument, seeing the strengths and faults of both sides, and also possessing a sense that question itself is flawed, that the futility of the argument is masked by an unnecessary assumption. Philosophy is (among so many other things) a scrubbing away of false necessities and confused or insincere questions.

This is sort of similar to comparing the human mind to a computer, however a feedback control system and a computer are similar in some ways and different in others. For one feedback can be purely analogy where as computer are almost always pure digital. — dclements

Well, that is all well and good, but the problem I am still having is why you are talking to me about this 'feedback' analogy and what balancing regulatory networks has to do with anything. Are you saying that you drank yourself to near death because it provided you with the pleasure that enabled you to survive the feelings of madness until you reached a point where it no longer gave you that pleasure? That, in the absence of this regulation between pain and pleasure - subjectively - inevitably leads to our doom?

If that is the case, well, it is a trick. The mind makes you believe that if you come face-to-face with this darkness or terror that it will somehow mean you will experience a perpetuity of pain (hence the "myth" of Sisyphus) and as we are programmed to seek happiness, we assume that the fleeting desire that pleasure provides will enable us to avoid facing this darkness. As it starts to terrify us, we become neurotic in our attempt to completely delude ourselves, pretending that we are happy in our relationship and life, when clear signals for this unhappiness is always alcohol and recreational drugs.

You are right that eventually these temporary albeit pleasurable solutions to avoid accepting that your reality is the cause of your misery will collapse, but if you face this mighty fall with integrity and honour - rather than being cowardly by continuing to lie to yourself - and as such build a new life for yourself with honesty, a life you trick yourself into believing is not possible, you will see that it is in honesty and authenticity that the eternal happiness resides.

You can build a wonderful 'show' and have everything that you are supposed to have but be completely miserable, the cycle or repetition is the lies we continue telling ourselves, relying on others rather than what you feel is right and thus being honest to yourself inevitably leads to your own destruction. That is, the real YOU as you slowly murder it with your dishonesty until you get so used to your own lies that you become comfortable and dependent on it.

When presented with an ethical dilemma, what am I to do? No doubt I have already chosen (to have the dilemma) and must make a choice (my eventually response), but there is no meaning or significance to guide me. I cannot say: "Well, X matters, so I am obligated do Y rather than Z. In the end (speaking of his early philosophy) Sartre just goes with the cop out of: "There is only what is chosen."

Sartre gives a great account of power. No matter what reasoning I give, I am the one doing it. It's bad faith for me to say: "I must because..." for it denies my responsibility in causing events. Even if I am behaving ethically (e.g. X matters), I'm the one doing it. I choose to make that world rather than it being a necessary outcome of whatever ethic (e.g God's authority, social demands, that X matters, etc.) is expessed.

In terms of value or ethics though, it's all but empty. Sure, it's true what happens will only be my choice, but that's no better than saying, "tomorrow, something will happen." It doesn't help with anything. If I'm dealing with value or ethics, I want to know what is important , so I can make a better choice about my actions. To say, "Well, there is nothing to say on the matter, there is only what is chosen" is only to miss and ignore the point entirely. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Thanks for amplifying what you mean. My memory of Sartre is that he isn't as minimalist as this, but the core is, I suppose, as you say it. My memory of him is that one can usefully try to understand what has been important to you and to others, and that there is for instance a political arena where one upholds one set of values rather than another. Certainly in his later work where he had read more Marx-related stuff he came to this sort of view.

Nevertheless I stick with Sartre in thinking, it's only the choice that matters. I daresay that's why I find most discussion of ethics rather over-theoretical and baffling. I've been reading some 'value theory' lately to get my head round it, and all this stuff about 'intrinsic' value of objects, for instance, leaves me cold. One is ethically as one does; one makes the leap into the unknown.

Absolutely. I even like Sartre's earlier work with it's absence of value. It's a great account of power, responsibility in the context of radical contingency.

Rightly, it removes the excuse from responsibility. Coercion can be properly understood as not an act which determines what someone does, but as an imposition on a free agent. No more denying what one has done nor how it is an act which impacts on others. His early philosophy is sort of where the idea of understanding people's impacts on each other begins.

Most ethical philosophy denies this dimension. It tends to be squabbling over which authoritarian value or foundation tells us what to do-- "Follow God", "No, it's the CI which shows us," "You ignorant fools, maximising happiness is moral foundation," etc. They are all abstracted rather than understood as an expression of living states that matter.

"Intrinsic" value or meaning sort of isn't too far wrong, at least in description. States and things have meaning, express value of themsleves, which is how people are morally obligated to act in ways they don't approve.

I ought not run-up and hit you. Such a state has an immoral expression. As you are person who matters, it's unacceptable for me to enact power in this way, even if I want to. You (and I) express a meaning, value or significance that no amount of desperation on my part can take away.

It's just "intrinsic value" tends to be used in abstraction, usually to deny the very possiblity​ of acting, thinking of being otherwise (e.g. human nature, "It's BIOLOGY", God's will, etc.).