Post-nihilism

[Kepler]

The machine can massage and convolute ideas it is given until they look coherent. Thinking is not only what comes to your mind but also how you are able to explore and criticise it. Ideas are cheap, they rush through even the dullest of minds by the dozens. The chatbot you're using (Gemini I suppose, but they have very similar speech patterns, so it can be GPT or something else) also has truly atrocious stylistics that obfuscates the topic with this characteristic, badly falsified profundity.

This typically bad example quite obviously ignores the fact that fighting among stags is an evolved mechanism accelerating natural selection, so for the genes (which are the actual players) it's an optimal play.

That is why it's necessary to correct and check it. There was no wall of text, and stylistics. just a simple layout of the ideas to avoid that.

And you're missing the point that moving to a chiral model escapes the zerosum trap in Nietzsche's model and answers the question of success that it and entrenched nihilism cannot.

 

[Nembra]

That is why it's necessary to correct and check it. There was no wall of text, and stylistics. just a simple layout of the ideas to avoid that.

And you're missing the point that moving to a chiral model escapes the zerosum trap in Nietzsche's model and answers the question of success that it and entrenched nihilism cannot.

You have imposed the zero sum onto Nietzsche's philosophy that is not there naturally.

 

[Kepler]

You have imposed the zero sum onto Nietzsche's philosophy that is not there naturally.

In aim, but due to its modeling in practice it is zero sum.

 

[Nembra]

In aim, but due to its modeling in practice it is zero sum.

That's an interpretation of yours I fail to see justified.

 

[Kepler]

That's an interpretation of yours I fail to see justified.

And that is on you since you're unable to deconstruct the logic, with now only the hope that a hollow illusion of you being capable of making that assessment will hold.

 

[Nembra]

And that is on you since you're unable to deconstruct the logic with the hope that an illusion of you being capable of making that assessment will hold.

How could the lack of logical foundation to your claims a matter of my intellect you keep insulting?

 

[Kepler]

How could the lack of logical foundation to your claims a matter of my intellect you keep insulting?

you're not showing an understanding of a lack or not to the logical foundation in the asymmetric model to Nietzsche and success in evolutionary terms at all. Only making the claim while completely avoiding doing so. It's likely that you're thinking you are making a logical counterpoint is a result of cognitive dissonance facing your own limitations.

 

[Nembra]

you're not showing an understanding of a lack or not to the logical foundation in the asymmetric model to Nietzsche and success in evolutionary terms at all. Only making the accusation while completely avoiding doing so. Likely you're thinking you are making a logical counterpoint is a result of cognitive dissonance facing your own limitations.

Ah, so this is your actual style. Messy.
I'm not making an accusation. I'm making an observation that your argument is incomplete, which makes it unconvincing. You are basing your model on an assumption that I am neither accepting nor disputing as of yet, only noting that you have as of yet left it completely unsupported.

Post automatically merged: Sunday at 4:36 PM

Yes and no. Let me see if I can unpack this a bit more.

So, as I currently view it:

Meaning = eudaimonia from behaving in a way that moves me towards my values.

Experience tells me my values and value (priority) stack seem largely unchosen and fairly stable in general day to day life [again, let's ignore for now what this nature is grounded in or who, if anyone, gave it to me].

To illustrate:

My top 3 values are [1] Health, [2] Autonomy/sovereignty, [3] Connection.

[Example 1] Can I sleep all day, getting no sunlight or exercise, eating pizza and chips and drinking Coke, talking to no one, and playing Grim Dawn till 5am for weeks on end? Yes, I can choose to do that. Will this give me pleasure? Yes, it may at the time in the euphoric, feel-good sense. However, after a while I tend to experience a deep dissatisfaction that I'm wasting my life and not doing anything significant (the opposite of eudaimonia, whatever that's called).

[Example 2] I go to the gym and run regularly, eat fairly bland (non sugary) food that's healthy for me but not super-tasty, socialise, go to sleep at 11pm every night and may not game for days or weeks. There may be days when I hate doing these things in the moment (i.e. the opposite of euphoria) because, for example, I'm tired and just want to veg out, etc. However, over time I develop a deep sense of satisfaction, that I'm living a significant, fulfilling life (eudaimonia).

I have no way to arbitrarily change these values. Experience/reality has taught me this many times. However, I can, for example, decide to do martial arts, dancing or Pilates instead of the gym, and if it still moves me towards health, that still works, i.e. I experience eudaimonia.

Conclusion: I have multiple ways to choose how to behave so I can move towards my values. I don't forge those values ex nihilo but I have choice in how I embody/enact them.

Is this in line with how Nietzsche and post-nihilists view meaning? I have no idea. I'll leave that to people in this thread who know more about these things than I do.

What will you do when the health betrays you? Who will you be then?

 

[Kepler]

Ah, so this is your actual style. Messy.
I'm not making an accusation. I'm making an observation that your argument is incomplete, which makes it unconvincing. You are basing your model on an assumption that I am neither accepting nor disputing as of yet, only noting that you have as of yet left it completely unsupported.

But you don't show an understanding of how it's incomplete. Only making the claim it is.

 

[Nembra]

But you don't show an understanding of how it's incomplete. Only making the claim it is.

It is incomplete because information is absent. There is literally nothing to understand, and that's the problem I'm pointing out. As I've said: you have proposed an interpretation that Nietzche's philosophy somehow points to some system being a zero-sum game. How? What system?

 

[Kepler]

It is incomplete because information is absent. There is literally nothing to understand, and that's the problem I'm pointing out. As I've said: you have proposed an interpretation that Nietzche's philosophy somehow points to some system being a zero-sum game. How? What system?

It does answer the question of success that you posed, and the nature of Nietzsche as zerosum. The system is a chiral model of evolution addressing asymmetry. It's not a refutation of Nietzsche, it's a development of his thesis.

Post automatically merged: Sunday at 5:12 PM

To post where this started

The defense mechanism that doesn't allow someone to commit themselves by answering questions but still want to participate in discussions above them to appear smarter than they are is not a path to success according to Nietzsche. The Scholarly Man.

An answer to your question can be found in a true development of Nietzsche's ideas in regards to natural evolution

Symmetrical Conflict vs. Chiral Adaptation
If we translate this into evolutionary behavior, we see a divide between Nietzsche's model and a current understanding physical reality:

Metric	Symmetrical / Nietzschean Evolution	Asymmetric / Chiral Evolution
The Game	Zero-Sum / Negative-Sum. Two stags fighting over the same patch of grass until one bleeds out.	Positive-Sum. One mutates a "chiral shift" in behavior or ecology, adapting to a new niche entirely.
The Goal	Dominating or resisting the immediate environment (Will to Power).	Escaping the trap of competition through creative, asymmetrical differentiation.
Outcome	Stagnation at a higher scale; energy is wasted on mutual destruction.	Complexity. The system grows because organisms find ways to generate more value than they consume (e.g., symbiosis).

 

[Frater M.M.]

What will you do when the health betrays you? Who will you be then?

These are excellent questions. To clarify before I answer them:

(Borrowing an ACT psychology metaphor) I currently view values like compass directions: just like you can't reach West, you can't reach "health" as such. And by "health", I don't really mean "being healthy" as some end state I have to achieve/maintain. I mean more the ongoing direction of respecting, maintaining and looking after my body/mind/spirit as best I can, whatever condition they're in. "Stewardship" is probably a better word for it.

So, if my arms fall off, I just have leg days in the gym or become a runner. If my legs fall off, I do chair Tai Chi. That is, I keep choosing the behaviour that embodies stewardship.

-------

So to answer your questions:

What will you do when the health betrays you?

Let's say I have terminal cancer. As long as I have options, I'll keep following respect and care for the body as much as I'm able: go to a hospital/hospice, make sure I get painkillers, eat if I can, keep the body clean/washed, etc.

Plus, I still have other values. Autonomy is now also pretty constrained but I can decide which hospital to be cared for in, who can visit me, treatment choice, etc. Connection is there if I interact with family, nurses, doctors, patients, etc.

But getting to the heart of your questions: assuming stewardship, autonomy and connection are my only known values and they become completely trashed, what then?

Let's say I'm lying in bed, can't move, in constant pain, looked after by robots. I'm so drugged I can't think straight. I'm out of options with no real choices for those three values. Having never been in this extreme situation, I'm guessing this experience may reveal previously unknown values. Perhaps I embrace Buddhism and discover that compassion or non-harm matters to me in a way I hadn't previously recognised, and meditation becomes one way of embodying that value. Maybe I'll have a deathbed conversion and discover I value obedience to God or enduring suffering because I believe God has a plan for it. Or perhaps I'll discover that dignity or agency over my own death matters strongly enough that I choose not to prolong the situation.

Who will you be then? I'll still be me whether I experience meaning or not.

Conclusion: as long as there are options, there's room for choice in how I embody my values. New or extreme circumstances may also reveal previously unknown values or cause the value stack to reorder, e.g. Autonomy > Stewardship. Otherwise, yes, if there are genuinely no options available and no new values have been discovered (I have my doubts this is possible while I am still conscious, but let's say this is so for the sake of argument), then by this model I will experience no meaning.

This is precisely the core realization that I think post-nihilism is trying to propose. It is not really even that extreme of a proposal, merely, that when you stop looking for meaning or trying to invent one yourself, one will naturally fall out of whatever it is on its own. Nietzsche is saying that this is the test of one's will, to resist whatever falls out and try to go even deeper, or to treat whatever emerges as a temporary solution, a useful tool, or just a recreational moment where you are just taking a break and letting your imagination run.

I think he is suggesting that with enough self-discipline, rather than through self-control, one can actually overcome the need to look for meaning and direct one's thoughts toward the accomplishment of whatever one has already committed to doing. Once one finds their intention and begins to carry it out, there is no further deliberation, no further consideration given to the meaning or purpose of the act. Whatever meaning or purpose we chose will suffice, given that no meaning and no purpose could ever actually represent whatever it is we think we are doing.

In that sense, any meaning, any purpose that we invent for ourselves, is a pure act of self expression and art when it comes from a place inside yourself and emerges from this process of trying to resist coming to a conclusion about the meaning or purpose of things. It is about the strength to keep walking the path and remain open minded as long as you can, not to make up your mind about things, and to tolerate the dissonance of being immersed into the unknown. We feel compelled to somehow turn it into the "known", just as I am doing right now even.

I'm not sure if I'm in agreement with you or not?

I think we agree that meaning doesn’t need to be objectively imposed and may emerge rather than be consciously invented. Where I’m less sure we agree is that I don’t experience whatever meaning I choose as equally workable. My values seem to constrain what can actually feel meaningful to me. Have I understood you correctly or no?

 

[Nembra]

These are excellent questions. To clarify before I answer them:

(Borrowing an ACT psychology metaphor) I currently view values like compass directions: just like you can't reach West, you can't reach "health" as such. And by "health", I don't really mean "being healthy" as some end state I have to achieve/maintain. I mean more the ongoing direction of respecting, maintaining and looking after my body/mind/spirit as best I can, whatever condition they're in. "Stewardship" is probably a better word for it.

So, if my arms fall off, I just have leg days in the gym or become a runner. If my legs fall off, I do chair Tai Chi. That is, I keep choosing the behaviour that embodies stewardship.

-------

So to answer your questions:

What will you do when the health betrays you?

Let's say I have terminal cancer. As long as I have options, I'll keep following respect and care for the body as much as I'm able: go to a hospital/hospice, make sure I get painkillers, eat if I can, keep the body clean/washed, etc.

Plus, I still have other values. Autonomy is now also pretty constrained but I can decide which hospital to be cared for in, who can visit me, treatment choice, etc. Connection is there if I interact with family, nurses, doctors, patients, etc.

But getting to the heart of your questions: assuming stewardship, autonomy and connection are my only known values and they become completely trashed, what then?

Let's say I'm lying in bed, can't move, in constant pain, looked after by robots. I'm so drugged I can't think straight. I'm out of options with no real choices for those three values. Having never been in this extreme situation, I'm guessing this experience may reveal previously unknown values. Perhaps I embrace Buddhism and discover that compassion or non-harm matters to me in a way I hadn't previously recognised, and meditation becomes one way of embodying that value. Maybe I'll have a deathbed conversion and discover I value obedience to God or enduring suffering because I believe God has a plan for it. Or perhaps I'll discover that dignity or agency over my own death matters strongly enough that I choose not to prolong the situation.

Who will you be then? I'll still be me whether I experience meaning or not.

Conclusion: as long as there are options, there's room for choice in how I embody my values. New or extreme circumstances may also reveal previously unknown values or cause the value stack to reorder, e.g. Autonomy > Stewardship. Otherwise, yes, if there are genuinely no options available and no new values have been discovered (I have my doubts this is possible while I am still conscious, but let's say this is so for the sake of argument), then by this model I will experience no meaning.

You can't reach the west, but you can reach a coast or a desert. Let's say you have a child instead. Think how much sleep and sanity would you have to sacrifice to care for them. Is it enough for you to decide not to have a child? What about a physically demanding hobby that will degrade your joints? What about a glass of wine? Would you never do something you know to be unhealthy? Would you never take a step east for any reason?

 

[nunaphael]

I'm not sure if I'm in agreement with you or not?

I think we agree that meaning doesn’t need to be objectively imposed and may emerge rather than be consciously invented. Where I’m less sure we agree is that I don’t experience whatever meaning I choose as equally workable. My values seem to constrain what can actually feel meaningful to me. Have I understood you correctly or no?

I believe we do have an understanding, yes.

You could say that we "disagree" but the way you have presented your experience makes it seem as if it is something personal and not necessarily a universal claim, i.e., you are saying that, your values provide a constraint on what can actually feel meaningful to you, but not necessarily extending the same constraint to everything in the universe. If that's true, then I would say, I don't think we really disagree at all, we're just different people. Like, we might both agree that limiting how much sugar you eat is a good thing, but if one of us is diabetic, it's a little different for that person.

I suppose I don't really know what my true values are, is the thing. I agree not every meaning is equally workable, and so if my mind generates a meaning or purpose for my experiences that just doesn't seem feasible, then I can't tolerate that and I will probably repress it or forget about it. But that's not necessarily ethical, it's just a matter of convenience or the limit of my own imagination. I don't really know what that limit is. I'm not sure who I might become, or what I might do, if I allowed everything to fall away. What would remain? I don't actually know. I've never gone that "deep" you might say. It seems extremely dangerous, but perhaps that's the point.

 

[ihateclowns]

"It is a measure of one's strength of will to know how far one can do without a meaning to things‚ how far one can bear to live in a totally meaningless world˸ for then one will organize a part of it․" ... "The power to create‚ to will‚ can be developed far enough that one has no further need for a general interpretation of existence‚ or the introduction of a meaning into it․" - Friedrich Nietzsche

I know a lot of people are instantly turned off by Nietzsche because his work is so viral, however I don't think the majority of people that are introduced to his ideas actually understand them correctly.

My thoughts as I fall in to and out of nihilism often and may be they will help someone.

First on Nietzsche I have seen lots of videos and documentaries on him when YT was new and seen the lectures on Existentialism and Nietzsche from TGC, I doubt the current students and the future students will be impressed by his work but even among the millenials and before them people would be divided I guess over his work.

Nihilism looks fancy from outside but when one truly understands it there would be a period of depression or some sort of mental breakdown but it depends on the prior events, their intensity also frequency that must have made someone to come to terms with it. It is easier said than done to maintain will power against the meaningless of the universe and existence. This is very subjective and debatable as everyone's life is unique with unique challenges.

For some people with great job, relationships, hobbies etc. accepting nihilism is a lot easier because their mind keeps them busy with all those things and they only talk about nihilism among friends or strangers in a club or during some holiday.

But it is entirely different for someone who is a loner who has no friends no relationships no one to love or care for him/her and probably no pet too. For such a person nihilism is a daily battle for survival without ending his/her life.

Also it is a normal thing for many those on the path of spirituality or ascension or soul work whatever you want to call to experience bouts of nihilism because the meaning which we create and have been creating all our lives through the above mentioned things (job etc.) would fall out of the personal measure of meaningfulness to our lives after a while.

Jung advices people to steer away from it and Joseph Campbell turns the tables on existential philosophers when he says in Power of Myth show (also book) that humans aren't seeking meaning what we are seeking is an experience of being alive.

So, if your life or anyone's life is filled with experiences of being alive then nihilism has no power. It is only when people have done everything possible in their capacity that made them felt alive and now nothing makes them feel alive anymore nihilism hits like a truck also after a long gestation period of boredom and frustration of missing the 'being alive'.

Nihilism is also a retribution on a universe that doesn't speak in our language and we refuse to learn the language it speaks.

The only cure to nihilism is love if you have love in your life through a person or a pet or even a mystery stranger meaning will fall into its place. And if you or anyone is forced into absolute nihilism again and again then you have to create love for yourself where there is none.

 

[Frater M.M.]

More great questions.

You can't reach the west, but you can reach a coast or a desert.

Yes, totally agree. You can have goals (ACT encourages it) and I think these are great to have for focus and clarity, etc. Like Stoicism (and no doubt many other paths), though, the point is still in aiming for them and accepting it if they don't actually get achieved IRL (i.e. focus on my area of influence only).

Let's say you have a child instead. Think how much sleep and sanity would you have to sacrifice to care for them. Is it enough for you to decide not to have a child?

So yes, my view is all the values are a bit like competing sub-personalities or drives: they all want a say. There may well be compromise involved. Having a child is not something to take on lightly. If I felt strongly enough about it and thought it would destroy my health, then yes I'd decide not to have one both for my sake and the child's. If I thought my health would take a hit but it was manageable to get everything else done and provide a healthy home for the child, I'd consider it.

What about a physically demanding hobby that will degrade your joints?

Having had injuries in the past from martial arts and dancing, I would 100% not repeat this. I do gym, Pilates and (safe/short) running now. I wanted to have a look at doing martial arts again a while ago but left it precisely for this reason.

What about a glass of wine?

I don't drink anyway but quit coffee because it was wrecking my sleep.

Would you never do something you know to be unhealthy? Would you never take a step east for any reason?

Yes, I would deliberately step east if another value gave me a good enough reason to. There may be situations where other values want expression and some compromise needs to be made.

So perhaps, in this model it's not a global value stack (I think I mentioned earlier it was a general, day-to-day stack) and there will be particular situations where a different order appears (within limits/reason).

In any given week, I usually try to let all my values have a say and make more towards moves than away moves. (And yes, of course I am imperfect, and will do stupid things that go against my values sometimes for no good reason.)

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 8:00 PM

I believe we do have an understanding, yes.

You could say that we "disagree" but the way you have presented your experience makes it seem as if it is something personal and not necessarily a universal claim, i.e., you are saying that, your values provide a constraint on what can actually feel meaningful to you, but not necessarily extending the same constraint to everything in the universe. If that's true, then I would say, I don't think we really disagree at all, we're just different people. Like, we might both agree that limiting how much sugar you eat is a good thing, but if one of us is diabetic, it's a little different for that person.

Yeah, my values aren't really an armchair a priori manifesto/thesis about humanity nor an a priori acceptance of rules from a higher authority that I have to religiously follow. They are more like my operator's manual that I appear to have discovered a posteriori by repeatedly doing stupid shit in my life and feeling dissatisfied with it.

I suppose I don't really know what my true values are, is the thing. I agree not every meaning is equally workable, and so if my mind generates a meaning or purpose for my experiences that just doesn't seem feasible, then I can't tolerate that and I will probably repress it or forget about it. But that's not necessarily ethical, it's just a matter of convenience or the limit of my own imagination. I don't really know what that limit is. I'm not sure who I might become, or what I might do, if I allowed everything to fall away. What would remain? I don't actually know. I've never gone that "deep" you might say. It seems extremely dangerous, but perhaps that's the point.

There may well be deeper layers for me to uncover or shed too. It's all a work in progress

 

[nunaphael]

My thoughts as I fall in to and out of nihilism often and may be they will help someone.

First on Nietzsche I have seen lots of videos and documentaries on him when YT was new and seen the lectures on Existentialism and Nietzsche from TGC, I doubt the current students and the future students will be impressed by his work but even among the millenials and before them people would be divided I guess over his work.

Nihilism looks fancy from outside but when one truly understands it there would be a period of depression or some sort of mental breakdown but it depends on the prior events, their intensity also frequency that must have made someone to come to terms with it. It is easier said than done to maintain will power against the meaningless of the universe and existence. This is very subjective and debatable as everyone's life is unique with unique challenges.

For some people with great job, relationships, hobbies etc. accepting nihilism is a lot easier because their mind keeps them busy with all those things and they only talk about nihilism among friends or strangers in a club or during some holiday.

But it is entirely different for someone who is a loner who has no friends no relationships no one to love or care for him/her and probably no pet too. For such a person nihilism is a daily battle for survival without ending his/her life.

Also it is a normal thing for many those on the path of spirituality or ascension or soul work whatever you want to call to experience bouts of nihilism because the meaning which we create and have been creating all our lives through the above mentioned things (job etc.) would fall out of the personal measure of meaningfulness to our lives after a while.

Jung advices people to steer away from it and Joseph Campbell turns the tables on existential philosophers when he says in Power of Myth show (also book) that humans aren't seeking meaning what we are seeking is an experience of being alive.

So, if your life or anyone's life is filled with experiences of being alive then nihilism has no power. It is only when people have done everything possible in their capacity that made them felt alive and now nothing makes them feel alive anymore nihilism hits like a truck also after a long gestation period of boredom and frustration of missing the 'being alive'.

Nihilism is also a retribution on a universe that doesn't speak in our language and we refuse to learn the language it speaks.

The only cure to nihilism is love if you have love in your life through a person or a pet or even a mystery stranger meaning will fall into its place. And if you or anyone is forced into absolute nihilism again and again then you have to create love for yourself where there is none.

I agree with everything you said, it's great stuff. Except that, you're talking about nihilism, not post-nihilism.

I'm sorry, but I have to ask, has anybody in this thread replying to this topic actually heard of post-nihilism before? I'm not trying to be rude in asking, just, it seems nobody has. Does anyone know how to differentiate between it and nihilism and existentialism and other similar philosophies? If not, why are you preaching instead of asking questions and gathering information? A quick google search even? Or even just looking back through this very thread to see the evolution of the discussion and various points that were addressed?

 

[ihateclowns]

I agree with everything you said, it's great stuff. Except that, you're talking about nihilism, not post-nihilism.

I'm sorry, but I have to ask, has anybody in this thread replying to this topic actually heard of post-nihilism before? I'm not trying to be rude in asking, just, it seems nobody has. Does anyone know how to differentiate between it and nihilism and existentialism and other similar philosophies? If not, why are you preaching instead of asking questions and gathering information? A quick google search even? Or even just looking back through this very thread to see the evolution of the discussion and various points that were addressed?

I'm not preaching I shared my thoughts and it doesn't take a genius to know what is post-nihilism (there is no need to google), this must be work of some desk job philosophers or people who think they figured out a best way of life, like how some people came up with the ideas of post-modernism and post-truth etc. These are really going over the board to sound very intellectual but others only think the opposite.

Post-nihilism is living with the total acceptance of nihilism, how is it different from Buddhism? The reason I shared about nihilism is because it is a very dangerous way to live and people won't live for long and quickly end their lives if they have no support. I have been there and I know the struggle and mental breakdown.

For eg. Buddhists rave about void but they all live in sangas with hundreds of monks sharing camaraderie, where are they actually living a lonely life with no relationships with utter meaninglessness staring back at them? It just shows the hypocrisy of Buddhist idea of nihilism, even Schopenhauer the most pessimistic philosopher had daddy's money and he was surrounded by women that was enough for him to get along with his life without ending his life for all the misery he talked universe comprised of.

A guy called Camus because he was French got noble prize for writing a book on whether to commit suicide but if you are possessed by nihilism and start reading The Myth of Sisyphus you won't get much far in that depressed state because the language he uses and complex twists and turns he takes to sound extremely intellectual. That is why I never recommend anyone to read the book when they have little suicidal tendencies. It only makes things worse.

If you want to sound intellectual with fancy words that is fine you are welcome everyone is free to talk what they want but assuming your idea and philosophy is unique is being naive and not knowing enough about life and ideas that have come already before.