Nihilism: C/D

So says ohn Goodman's character in The Big Lebowski.

"Uli's a nihilist. He believes in nothing."
"That must be exhausting."

Destroy: E.M. Cioran, Albert Camus

But isn't nihilism as idealism = purposelessness as purpose? The belief that no principles or beliefs can have meaning is in itself a belief and does in itself have a meaning! Isn't therefore the pursuit of nihilism an effort in itself and therefore un-nihilistic? Is it something that requires conscious thought or is it achieved by regressing to the idiot savant state, or Deleuze & Guitarri's condition of the schizophrenic? And at that point are you nihilistic or do you just act in a way which is nihilistic? And is there, at root, a difference?

But anyway. How to bounce back up? Become Zen! Yes yes yes. Abdicate from the Western duality of mind(spirit/soul) and body, of art and science, of romantic and classical! Yes yes yes. Seriously, I read The Tao Te Ching and The Tao Of Pooh by Benjamin Hoff, plus some Debord and Heidegger and lots of stuff about Buddhism and so on and so forth, thought about things a lot until I came to the conclusion that it's not that bad. All these things that piss you off (the mundanity of most discourse, the insincerity of everyday communication, the insidiousness of business, the ulterior/interior motives of government, the dehumanising effects of city life, the unstoppable flow of capitalism, the creation within us of false and disproportionate desires [we're not all gonna be beautiful artists, rock stars, writers, monarchs footballers], pollution, any of it, all of it), you can avoid some of them (don't like living in the city? Don't live there! There is always a way out) and those you can't avoid you can live with, and even enjoy some of them (those petty, redundant conversations - just 'cos they're petty doesn't mean they're evil, doesn't mean they can't be enjoyed or productive). Culture itself does not make anyone into a pariah, it can't, it's a thingy, it doesn't exist, it's just a collection of stuff we do. You make yourself into a pariah and therefore you can unmake yourself into a pariah too. And you keep reading and you keep listening and looking, and you see the people who are getting on with their lives and are happy and you don't copy what they do so much as how they do it, because it's not about events or objects or articles but rather about approaches. Nihilism! Yay! It's escapable, and existential angst which causes it is escapable too!

are you nihilistic or do you just act in a way which is nihilistic? And is there, at root, a difference?

A mate of mine kept on cheating on his girlfriend, and everytime he'd do it, he'd ring me the next day and say "but I'm not a bad person am I? I don't mean to do it!" After a while I got bored of this little roleplay, and replied, very sensibly, "if cheating on one's girlfriend makes one a bad person, then you ARE a bad person, simply because you do cheat on your girlfriend. The intention matters not one jot." We try and seperate the 'being' from the 'acting' when really they are one and the same, the 'being' in our logic tied to the 'soul' and the acting tied to the 'body', when there is no duality between the two! Stop talking about your liver or your legs or your ears as if you bought them and realise that they are you and you are them and that that is not a big thing, it's just the way it is and they can change and you can change and nothing is immutable! Yes yes yes!

Nihilism = bad for you, and objectionable, and yet you still quite enjoy it, like wallowing in self-pity or picking a really bad scab. It gives you an excuse to be shit and to be a shit, takes off any of that oh so burdonsome weight of expectation, for a little while at least. Cos you either grow out of it or you die! A|nd the weight of expectation is never really gone anyway, never really divorced, it just gets hidden, and it'll come back. After all, that's why you're a nihilist, isn't it? Getting rid of the weight of expectation means embracing now and not the future or the past, and nihilism is about not even embracing now, not embracing anything, except futility, and that's wrong, because now isn't futile! Now is great!

So, to conclude, nihilism = dud. Getting out of nihilism = classic.

"a Nihilist is one who bows to no authority and accepts no doctrine, however widespread, that is not supported by proof."

nihilists believe in nothing in the sense that nothingness is the outcome they desire, for themselves and the world

It doesnt sound like much fun...

"Be severe to yourself and severe to others. Suppress the sentiments of relationship, friendship, love, and gratitude. Have only one pleasure, one joy, one reward -- the triumph of the revolution. Night and day, have only one thought, the destruction of everything without pity. Be ready to die and ready to kill any one who opposes the triumph of your revolt." Bakunin

Stupid question but what does nothingness mean? ps do you agree with Nick regarding "intent" and also that nothing is immutable?

I'm pretty certain that nihilism, at least in the way that Dan is using it, means something quite different. More along the lines of nhilism as lack of belief (in anything), lack of will (to do anything), and certainly lack of desire to bring about any "conclusion." But eh, a nihilist would hardly care how we define this or that ism.

Nick a few thoughts from a discussion I had with a friend Chris Butler about intent and the intresting points you raise. Im no philosophy graduate but I have an intrest in theology and I find it all fascinating. The point being, sorry if in all likelyhood Im missing something.

The philosophical question to me here seems to rest on what the man means by the word "mean." At the basic level, he *does* mean to do it; he does not *accidentally* have sex, nor does he have sex because someone put a gun to his head and commanded him to do it( I presume). But what he seems to want to express by saying he doesn't *mean* to do it is that he is unable to resist his temptation to do it. He would rather not do it, but his will gives in to the temptation. In that case, it's possible that his moral responsibility *could* be mitigated although generally speaking its pretty hard to maintain that he couldnt have resisted.

If your mate was a sex addict, for example, his intention to try to break his addiction really does matter surely, even if he fails sometimes. Are you saying one cannot refer simply to a person's actions as bad, and refrain from referring to the person himself?

IMHO I think we can at least on a certain level seperate being and acting. Strictly speaking, an act "takes place," or "occurs," but does not "exist,". A person, animal, thing, etc. *exists*. For example, if a person runs across the room, the person exists, while the running *occurs*. I am aware that people sometimes use the word "being" with a wider meaning- metaphysics etc but I dont think its really helpful.

Your basic premise about "if cheating on one's girlfriend makes one a bad person, then you ARE a bad person, simply because you do cheat on your girlfriend" seems to still hold true to me on one level and this irks me a bit. Intention being the guilt for sin etc hmmmm I need to think some more.

But anyway, actions and intentions. It is the being (who has intentions) who carries out the actions, therefore the two are indelibly linked by the being. It comes down to expression and self-expression. Take two 'actions'. 1; Painting a picture, and 2; tying your shoelace. Typical western view of self-expression asserts that the former is an act of self-expression, and the later is not, it is just tying a shoelace. But you are yourself at all times, and therefore everything you do is an expression of your self, from tying shoelaces to painting a picture. Certainly, some actions are unthought, subconscious, but you cannot 'turn off' your self, it is always 'you' who carries out these actions, and, as I have expressed above, you are yourself, at all times. You cannot divorce your actions from your self, and you must therefore accept that even one's negative actions go towards composing your dasein or self or whatever. This is, of course, a simplistic way of determining good and bad, and shouldn't be taken as the only way of determining this. In fact, this discussion isn't even, I feel, useful for the argument of good vs bad or objective morality (as I've said, I don't feel this exists as such [maybe shared emotional responses can lead to this, but as states of enlightened mind are not shared {ie; we are all individuals with different analogues of experience}, emotional responses are unlikely to be identical even if they are shared {and certainly reactiosn to shared emotional responses are gonna be different - chaos theory tells us this much}]), but it is useful for the discussion of action vs intention in construction of the self.

nothingness is what is left when you get rid of stuff

Up above the streets and houses
Rainbow flying high
Everyone can see it shining
But they don't know why
It's because the rain and sun
Together make it so
The rain acts as a prism
And refracts the sun's bright glow

Search: "The Floating Opera" by John Barth

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11836868_10207465746505700_3157966135304274868_n.jpg?oh=012efc371a2485938d93067625210f63&oe=5683D4ED