[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Exposing the Emerald Empire

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Tags: leftism (CLICK HERE FOR MORE LEFTIST 8CHAN BOARDS), politics, activism, news

File: 1458192606015.jpg (15.03 KB, 525x350, 3:2, anarcho nihilism.jpg)

 No.601569

What even is Anarcho Nihilism?

Should I take the Grey pill?

 No.601573

It's moral relativism wrapped up in a package of edge and pretending you don't care


 No.601575

>>601573

>moral relativism

So it's just an edgy form of Egoism?


 No.601578

>>601575

yes

There was one poster on /leftypol/ a long while ago, a pirateflag poster than namefagged as Heidegger, that routinely BTFO'd all the nihilists on the board

Really wish I screencapped the fucking thread


 No.601580

>>601578

This is a bit off topic but why do so many Anarchists here fap to Stirner so much? Egoism is basically on par with Objectivism at its core, while being more nuanced and Stirner being a better thinker than Rand


 No.601585

>>601580

Didn't stirner say something about being moral because immorality felt unpleasant to him or some shit


 No.601589

>>601585

That sounds kind of like a copout/something he threw in there to cover his ass


 No.601610

File: 1458194436346.png (235.17 KB, 500x375, 4:3, hereigo.png)

it's something to consider, but i'll go ahead and define some basic Nietzschean terms for you if want to start reading into it

>Active vs. Passive Nihilism

a lot of Nietzsche’s concepts center around nihilism, but he makes a distinction between two types of nihilism. Both start from the premise that there is no extrinsically-defined value to existence – there is no real meaning to life. Passive nihilism is when we accept that there is no meaning to life, we resign ourselves to that fact and become devoid of emotion, etc. However, with active nihilism, when we accept that there is no meaning to life we then create our own values – we become gods to fulfill the space left open by the death of God.

>the Will to Power

The Will to Power is the drive towards attaining a higher position in life or becoming stronger. This, according to Nietzsche, is the driving factor in life that controls our decisions – at the core, our root desire is to become more powerful. This can be a positive force or a negative force – the Will to Order can sometimes manifest from the Will to Power.

>the Will to Order/Truth

Essentially, the Will to Order is the drive to control the world around us and to eliminate suffering – this is a phenomenon that generates ressentiment.

>the Real World/Apparent World

The Real World is perfect, with no suffering whatsoever, while the Apparent world is imperfect and needs to be controlled and made into the Real World.

>Ressentiment

Ressentiment is the hatred for the Apparent World engendered by the impossibility to make it into the Real World. When someone is consumed by ressentiment they have no desire to live in the Apparent World because it can never match up to the perfection of the Real World. The key distinction to understand is that the Apparent World is naturally imperfect – to put it simply, shit happens. We can never fix everything.

>the Ubermensch

The Ubermensch is the figure who embraces active nihilism – he/she accepts life as it is, without compromise, without change. Zarathustra is the epitome of the figure of the Ubermensch – Zarathustra transcends morals and values to become a figure who affirms life in its whole.

most nihilists center around the idea of affirming life (love of life and all its parts) and amor fati (we should love fate and accept what life throws at us regardless of the outcome)

Deleuze has a rather good example of amor fati

He wrote a bit about the metaphor of a gambler throwing dice, and how a bad player will repeat his throw (he has calculated the probability) with a certain end in mind and he knows that his way there is the necessity of causality. However Deleuze argues that because there is no cause/reason in the world, this makes the gambler a bad player. So for the bad player, the final goal lies at the end of the causal chain instead of the event itself. But the good player affirms (Nietzschean) his single throw and realizes that his throw is not a piece in a grander picture/fate, but that the throw is an expression of the whole fate in itself.

It's up to you to decide whether to take the grey pill or not, anon. honestly a lot of the lit is hard to understand, so I don't blame you for not taking the plunge


 No.601637

>>601610

thank u m8 this was actually really helpful


 No.601641

>>601610

meant to ask for some type of reading list as well


 No.601648

>>601573

Are you saying that you're a moral objectivist? What sort of morality do you subscribe to?

Also, this is not only an incorrect and simplified summarization of political nihilism, but it pretty much demonizes every single anarchist there is since very few anarchists are moral objectivists. You also don't even have to be a nihilist to be a moral relativist; in fact, the poster boy for anti-nihilism - Nietzsche - has the strongest, most compelling, and most influential arguments against moral objectivism out there.

Really, your post is just 0/10 and reeks of ressentiment.

>>601578

Also, Prof. Heidegger has a fucking PhD in philosophy. No shit he would BTFO everyone on the board; he's way smarter and more well-read than anyone here. I ended up deciding it wasn't worth it to try to debate him on this topic because he has so much more years of reading and intense study ahead of me that I can't imagine any possible outcome where he wouldn't either destroy me in a debate or present a far more developed and convincing position.

Again, more ressentiment.


 No.601663

>>601580

Egoism isn't even slightly in line with Objectivism because Objectivism requires that 99% of the population deny their self-interests because of the spook of muh virtuous job creator

Try again.


 No.601679

>>601641

just some stuff off the top of my head:

General nihilist/existentialist /egoist :

The Antichrist, The Will To Power, The Myth of Sisyphus, the Ego and Its Own, Being and Time


 No.601685

>>601610

Also, this is a really solid post and anyone who want to have any understanding of the relevance nihilism has to anarchism should start here - especially considering that the ideas of Stirner and Nietzsche and the nihilist tradition in general have come to essentially dominate all contemporary anarchist theory.


 No.601749

File: 1458198129549.png (543.65 KB, 768x560, 48:35, nihilist-reading-club.png)


 No.601757

File: 1458198248336.jpg (237.9 KB, 483x725, 483:725, 1439155011123.jpg)

>>601749

sup comrade


 No.601773

File: 1458198956307.png (363.29 KB, 768x560, 48:35, 1458198129549.png)


 No.601827


 No.601833

File: 1458200400630.jpg (399.6 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, dreams.jpg)

>>601679

To add to this list some interesting authors/books:

Philip Kain - "Nietzsche, Eternal Recurrence, and the Horror of Existence"

Paul Saurette (applies Nietzschean concepts to IR theory)

Alenka Zupančič - "The Shortest Shadow: Nietzsche's Philosophy of the Two" (she has a philosophical background similar to Žižek, i.e. Lacanian)

Saul Newman - "Anarchism and the Politics of Ressentiment" also he has a shit ton of papers/books on Stirner

Deleuze - Nietzsche and Philosophy (dicethrow guy)


 No.601951

>>601610

>Nietzsche

I don't agree with his whole "You are the Ubermensch when you don't follow any ideal or ideologies", though it makes sense in another way.


 No.601984

>>601569

Here, it's basically Stirnirite egoism.

Not here, it's the belief that because nihilism we should have individualist anarchy.


 No.602006

Ontology and specifically nihilism is my forte, but I'm not a natural English speaker. Please bare with me.

>>601610

To Nietzsche, nihilism is what the result of accepting imposed values (rather than making ones own). We must accept there is no innate value, play with nihilism as it were, but be aware we can construct our own. According to Nietzsche, die Letzte Mench or antithesis to the Ubermensch is overcome by nihilism and desperately (but lazily) seeks meaning wherever.

The World (which you can find more expanded in Heidegger) the 'world' mean different things to different nihilists. Existential nihilists, for example, hold that the World and world are one and the same and both completely meaningless and, arguably, even non-existent. Generally speaking, nihilism has no ideal and no 'perfect' (except the ideal of nothing).

There is a lot more to nihilism than Nietzsche. Most recent and 'significant' work I can think of is Nihil Unbound by Ray Brassier. It's also very old: the oldest source I know is Gorgias, a pre-Socratic sophist (who may or may not have been a nihilist).

>honestly a lot of the lit is hard to understand, so I don't blame you for not taking the plunge

Mostly Deleuze (helped by Guattari). That's what postmodernism and/or anti-modernism consciousness does to your writing.

>>601578

I'm skeptical and would like to read some of these posts. Nihilism is notoriously hard to fully denounce and many philosophers to this day struggle with either finding an equilibrium or denouncing it entirely.


 No.602632

File: 1458234951432.jpg (Spoiler Image, 565.85 KB, 904x983, 904:983, 1433777769430-1.jpg)

>>602006

Why the sage tho, fam?


 No.602655

>>602632

Polite sage.

I prefer to watch and am fairly new.


 No.602707

>>601648

n1x I was making fun of you being an edgelord, not

>implying objectivism

0/10 go take personal offense elsewhere

>I ended up deciding it wasn't worth it to try to debate him on this topic because he has so much more years of reading and intense study ahead of me that I can't imagine any possible outcome where he wouldn't either destroy me in a debate or present a far more developed and convincing position.

just like you dodge literally everything

get off the board and go actually read a book


 No.602722

File: 1458236762017.jpg (94.79 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 1445295278856.jpg)

>>601610

>the Real World/Apparent World

The Real World is perfect, with no suffering whatsoever, while the Apparent world is imperfect and needs to be controlled and made into the Real World.

>platonism


 No.602776

>>601648

>Also, Prof. Heidegger has a fucking PhD in philosophy. No shit he would BTFO everyone on the board; he's way smarter and more well-read than anyone here. I ended up deciding it wasn't worth it to try to debate him on this topic because he has so much more years of reading and intense study ahead of me that I can't imagine any possible outcome where he wouldn't either destroy me in a debate or present a far more developed and convincing position.

>not seeking your own rebirth through destruction

so very attached, damned materialists


 No.602804

>>602776

Idealists are the lowest form of scum.


 No.602810

>>602804

Materialists are the little children that think the wooden blocks they build their castles with are all there is.


 No.602821

>>602810

Why don't you go and transcend your material existence by swallowing a bullet.


 No.602824

>>602821

rejoice, there is no material butt to hurt


 No.602994

File: 1458244930560-0.png (52.67 KB, 600x800, 3:4, no-text.png)

File: 1458244930561-1.png (70.25 KB, 600x800, 3:4, text.png)


 No.603010

>>602994

>The current year

>Still being a humanistic socialist

>Not being a structuralist socialist

please


 No.603019

>>603010

>being a [your brand of thought]

>not being a [my brand of thought]

Do you even real?


 No.603024

>>603019

Humanistic socialists have not been relevant since the late 1800's though.


 No.603042

>>602707

This has nothing to do with personal offense. I'm not interested in dealing with this kind of shit anymore; I only responded out of interest in setting straight what nihilism actually is, and to make the point that nihilism doesn't begin and end with me.

And fuck you too.


 No.603066

Anarcho Nihilism isn't a grey pill. It's as Zizek says, a pill which allows you to find truth in the illusion.


 No.603073

>>601578

>heidegger

>thinking someone who worships a guy who made up some anthropocentric BS called "being" and thinking that would quell nihilism would BTFO anyone.


 No.603083

>>603066

I see, the philosophical equivalent of the gadgets sold in infomercials.

Zizek is the Billy Mays of philosophy.


 No.603091

File: 1458247587834.jpg (216.25 KB, 620x417, 620:417, WillyWonka.jpg)

More linguistic post-reality Nitzschean philosophy from ghe world of pure imagination.


 No.603093

>>602776

I agree with this except for the part where he says "damned materialists".

As Camus would say "Always go too far, it's where you'll find the truth"


 No.603096

>>603083

Eh, I think that's a bit harsh. Just because it sounds like something a commercial would say doesn't mean it's not correct.


 No.603108

>>603093

Materialists are damned when they fall into "that's not materialist!" trap. That's like scientism, a method stretching beyond it's reach. It becomes an argumenative trick.

>>603096

A comparison with Russel Brand might be more apt, Russel Brand for grown ups. Zizek made some entertaining and -dare I say- thought provoking essays and videos, but his overall philosophy doesn't reach beyond this prowess.


 No.603480

File: 1458263276959.gif (194 KB, 500x297, 500:297, 06.gif)

All anarchism is nihilistic to some degree, so anarcho-nihilism is kinda weird. I mean, you'd be hard-pressed to find any decent theorist outside of the reactionary/classical liberal crowd to /not/ be a moral relativist at least on a personal level. So it might be a tad of a surplus to have anarcho-nihilism, it's like saying you're a socialistic-communist. We're all the Last Men over here!


 No.604796

>>603480

What's the Last Men?


 No.604808

>>603108

I've never heard someone argue by saying "that's not materialist!" I've heard arguments saying "there's no evidence" AKA there's no reason to believe it though.

Can you elaborate on what you mean please?


 No.607587

>>603073

>some anthropocentric BS called "being"

I take it you're a follower of object-oriented ontology?


 No.607684

>>607587

Didn't say that. I just don't subscribe to wrong or arbitrary ideas.


 No.607713

>>603073

Your caricature shows what a moron you are. How's your "socialist studies" around Stirner and Schopenhauer going? I never understood this type of mentality: X is shit! [gives erroneous caricature that indicates he doesn't have a clue about what he's talking].

>>603083

another genius

>>603108

>Zizek is memes

>i am very smarts

Oh, ok, so what do you think about Zizek's proposed political ontology or his proposed new fundations in dialectical materialism that allows him to overcome the transcendental approach without regressing to naïve, pre-Kantian realism?

>>603480

all vegetables are nihilistic to some degree, too

>>607684

>I just don't subscribe to wrong or arbitrary ideas.

Wow. Just. Wow.


 No.607769

>>601575

>implying that egoism isn't already an edgy form


 No.608851

Can we all agree on something?

All forms of nihlism are complete shit. That includes Stirner's Egoism.

The only acceptable form of nihilism is Nietzchean, with supplemental thought indicating that protecting the right of other people to seek their self-made meanings is as important as your right to seek your self-made meaning. In other words, fucking people over is a bad idea and this can be demonstrated in game theory.


 No.608853

>>608851

>Can we all agree on something?

Never.


 No.608901

>>608851

>The only acceptable form of nihilism is Nietzchean

I thought Nietzche was against nihilism, that he viewed Christianity and Buddhism as "nihilist philosophies" because they are "life-denying".


 No.608918

>>608901

His reaction to nihilism is basically "OK you're right but have you considered the following-". He builds on nihilism, but hates its pure form.


 No.608944

>>608851

>disbelief in inherent meaning is complete shit

how about you fuck yourself in the ass with a broken mason jar full of fire ants


 No.609013

File: 1458534335361.png (193.4 KB, 813x425, 813:425, forgiven.png)

>>608851

>protecting the rights of other people to seek their self-made meanings

It's easy to see how this would deny the forms of power and domination that naturally accompany humans, i.e. the Will to Power.

>all forms of nihilism are complete shit

:^)

>>608901

Nietzsche was opposed to passive nihilism + Schopenhauer's solution of denial/repression of the Will. He agreed that existence had no extrinsically-defined value, but rather his solution was to accept/affirm life as it is and create value to existence through experience. This solution is usually juxtaposed with philosophical pessimism.

As for religion:

A Nietzschean view of Buddhism would most likely go along the lines of, "One of the Four Noble Truths is 'suffering can be eliminated,' this obsession with abolishing suffering generates ressentiment towards life because suffering is inevitable and gives life meaning." Thus the impact is two-fold: generates ressentiment towards life and also that which gives life meaning.

In Nietzsche's own words on Christianity from the Twilight of the Idols,

>"What alone can be our doctrine? That no one gives a man his qualities — neither God, nor society, nor his parents and ancestors, nor he himself. (The nonsense of the last idea was taught as "intelligible freedom" by Kant — and perhaps by Plato.) No one is responsible for a man's being here at all, for his being such-and-such, or for his being in these circumstances or in this environment. The fatality of his existence is not to be disentangled from the fatality of all that has been and will be. Human beings are not the effect of some special purpose, or will, or end; nor are they a medium through which society can realize an "ideal of humanity" or an "ideal of happiness" or an "ideal of morality." It is absurd to wish to devolve one's essence on some end or other. We have invented the concept of "end": in reality there is no end. A man is necessary, a man is a piece of fatefulness, a man belongs to the whole, a man is in the whole; there is nothing that could judge, measure, compare, or sentence his being, for that would mean judging, measuring, comparing, or sentencing the whole. But there is nothing besides the whole. That nobody is held responsible any longer, that the mode of being may not be traced back to a primary cause, that the world does not form a unity either as a sensorium or as "spirit" — that alone is the great liberation. With that idea alone we absolve our becoming of any guilt. The concept of "God" was until now the greatest objection to existence. We deny God, we deny the responsibility that originates from God: and thereby we redeem the world."


 No.609152

>>609013

What are you talking about? If you mean fucking people over that's objectively pretty bad, not only through game theory but because it threatens other people's, to use American phrasing, "pursuit of happiness". If what would make you more happy is making other people less happy then you're gonna have to suck it up.

Let's say you're rich. Let's say suddenly you're not rich. You're now on the receiving end of everything you may have done to fuck people over to get to where you were. You understand the pain it brings people and why doing those things are bad. Effectively, in these things you can't just discriminate between "you" and "not you" because all "you" is is some shit attached to an organic computer. There is absolutely no reason why you should serve yourself above anyone else.

http://www.the-philosopher.co.uk/buddhism.htm

I do have my own issues RE: Buddhism though. Particularly, it talks about abandoning selfishness, and yet achieving nirvana and leaving everyone else behind to get fucked seems selfish. Nirvana also seems like it doesn't have any inter-personal contact, which is one of the main sources of pleasure. It seems like you could tap how it would make you feel at any given time but not actually do it. Or masturbate, even. It seems fake.

Regarding Christianity- I've seen much better arguments against Christianity to be honest. He seems to be criticizing Determinism more than Christianity. The only "special purpose" is uniting people with God.

>>608944

wew cool it buddy


 No.610144

File: 1458599977589.jpg (399.05 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, wiwtp.jpg)

>>609152

This is probably the biggest misperception of Nietzsche's philosophy. He never advocates that suffering is good, or that inflicting suffering is good; simply that it is inevitable. And to prove this through game-theory a bit, as you know, many elements of social interaction are zero-sum games. For example, if one person is hired by a company after an interview, the other candidates are rejected. One person's experience is pleasurable because they satisfied the will to power, while the others' experiences are painful because they did not satisfy the will to power. Therefore, in a society where somehow everybody's pursuit of happiness is protected is not possible because humans naturally have a desire for power and suffering cannot be eliminated.

>there is absolutely no reason why you should serve yourself above anyone else

My argument was that the solution to protect everyone's "pursuit of happiness" is not feasible because no matter how hard you try to eliminate suffering, it's inevitable, and trying to escape it by defending Utopian bullshit philosophies doesn't help anybody.


 No.610148

>>601569

It's a meme


 No.610158

Hey do you know what would win people over to the cause? Having 90 competing factions!


 No.610172

>>610158

>when you pretend to sage because you want your shitty post to be noticed but don't want to obviously bump shit threads

here's your (You)


 No.610177

>>610144

this. He actually says that because suffering is bad, we must avoid pity so long as it impedes on our enjoyment of life.

His life was basically the one Schopenhauer advocated for. Nietzsche hated his own way of living, most of his philosophy was against it. It ended up destroying him.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]