/lit/ - Literature

probably a little like this

This is how it will go:

You'll walk up to a youngish couple, and stop in front of them. They'll stop, expecting something to happen, but they'll wait a few seconds, look at each other, and then continue to walk past you.

Then, realizing your "opportunity" is slipping away you'll try to shout out "I'm a Nihilist!" but all that will come out (all they'll hear) is "I-I-'m Nihl..." They'll slow down the process of walking away from you to maybe ask "What?" or "What did he say, honey?" but they'll eventually just think the whole thing stupid and walk off.

Nobody would care.

Not here, anyway. They'd just look at you with fear or confusion and proceed to walk away or call the police.

They'd avoid eye contact and guiltily purchase a Big Issue off you.

A ball of spaghetti will be ejected from your mouth and hit an innocent bystander.

fuck off you little fagbag

"Say what you will about the tenets of national socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."

>>3725493
I would say:
"That's gonna have me distracted all fucking day. Go away."
Others would say:
"What? Sorry? I don't understand?" (To which you'd then repeat your phrase and they'd say, "I still don't understand", to which you'd, hopefully, say 'never mind', and walk away.) Or, they'd say, "Good on you, weirdo." Or, they'd be similarly beta and say something like, "Can you say outright that you're a nihilist, if you're a nihilist?"

me too
-both keep walking-

>>3725631
Someone is awfully self obsessed.
You better check yourself before you wreck yourself.

i'd tell you that's cute and get the fuck away from your retarded self

>>3725616
"Vee vant ze money Lebowski!" "Ja Lebowsi, vee believes in nossing"

>>3725493
I would say I'm a nihilist too and invite you to have a drink at a coke bar.

Coke bars are the new absynth bars.

>>3725493
I would take you to my house and tie you up and do awful things to you and eat the remains. :-)

I would call you a rage quitter and then give you a copy of Aristotle's metaphysics so you can learn about final causes, intrinsic purposes, and other cool shit you ignore.

"So's everyone else, welcome to post-industrial life, tryhard."

i would probably also ask you for a cigarette

>>3725899
Lol final causes.
I seriously wonder how people can still believe in that.

>>3725899
You don't need to believe in Aristotle's bullshit to find it interesting, assuming that just because some try hard labeled himself a nihilist he hasn't heard of basic greek shit is... well, you obviously have some kind of superiority complex to believe that a) he doesn't know about, b) Aristotle is "cool".

plato > aristotle in every way. the only remotely interesting shit he wrote about were the poetics. up your game, pleb.

>>3725916
teleology is basically the most retarded thing everyone has ever thought of

If you said that to me we'd brawl

>>3725925
i can see how it can make sense in an analogy of the universe with the biologica body/political body where parts have ends. But besides that it's just silly and it's a shame that so many analytic philosophers are struggling to bring it back.

>>3725921
Oh, Plato is a lot cooler that Aristotle, I will give you that. And a lot better of an orator as well. However, I do still say that Aristotle is just Plato + Common sense.

I have to have a "superiority complex" to think Aristotle is cool (right in most things)? You must be new here.

>>3725946
"common sense" that's why aristotle is terrible.

>>3725946
common sense is a tool for the hoi polloi not to accidentally kill themselves while working, it's not something you use or works to answer die weltratsel.

No, you have a superiority complex because you assume the try hard nihilist hasn't heard of it. And you also have shitty reading comprehension.

I was on /lit/ when it was on /r9k/.

I would call you a rage quitter and then give you a copy of Gadamer and Heidegger bibliography so you can learn about ?????????

>>3725957
Why try hard nihilist
Are there no-try hard nihilists? Arent all try-hords?

>>3725971
everyone who label themselves a nihilist is a try hard, they're interested in the tag. most people are effectively nihilists, no need for a special label.

slap you with my phallus until you agree that ethics exist but are necessarily aporetic

>>3725976
I label myself a moral nihilists for the sole purpose of avoiding feelings of guilt for my habits.

I'd say, "oh, okay. Good for you kid. Peace," and then I'd walk away. Nihilism is a stage a lot of smart people go through. I can't hold it against you.

>>3725981
no, you label yourself a moral nihilist to TELL people you don't feel guilt for your habits, as you just did. being and labeling and entirely different verbs, and mostly unrelated.

>>3725957
I am indeed sorry for misreading what you wrote. I do apologize for trying to talk about Aristotle as if OP has not read him, but my first impression of the "tryhard" OP was that he was someone who had just discovered what a nihilist was, and therefore believed himself to be "Darker and Edger" by talking on /lit/. As well, when talking to people in real life, I also make the casual assumption that amongst my age group, (High School Seniors) that the vast majority of them are not well versed in Philosophy. I do apologize. Lastly, I fail to see how common sense is a bad thing amongst those who search of truth. Sounds vaguely elitest if I do say so myse... oh wait. This is e/lit/e.

>>3725688
You mean shrek yourself

>>3725993
>you label yourself a moral nihilist to TELL people you don't feel guilt for your habits
I don't tell people about my habits in real life at all, I label myself a moral nihilist to appease my guilt--it's more of a psychological thing than anything.

>>3725986
What then? Stop the nihilist-is-a-phase thing.

>>3726000
How can you have a system of morality without an idea of objective good? I mean, I guess you could be moral by the definition of what society says, but that is just argumentum ad populam. To me (actually searching for an answer, not trying to make fun), a "Moral nihilist" sounds like an oxymoron.

>>3725981
>>3725993

do not be n insufferable cunt by labeling your whole self 'nihilist'. I was that train and nobody shit or comprehended tangledness.

>3726000
you just did. the internet is real. if you were a moral nihilist entirely for psychological reasons you wouldn't either need a name for it or talk about it, whether you consider it real life or not.

again, the distinction between label and be escapes you.

>>3725995
>High School

well that explains why you're a moron. won't hold it against you.

>>3726011
Needs? What do you understand by 'needs'?

>>3726013
>How can you have a system of morality without an idea of objective good?
You're asking the wrong person man.

>>3726011
Wait.

Somehow I am a moron because
A: You disagree with me,
and
B: My age?

Sounds like ad hominem to me.

>>3726013
It's not that you are moral and nihilist; just nihilist in morality.

>>3726013
a moral nihilist means someone who believes morality is not inherent to reality. read a book instead of reading the wikipedia pages for informal fallacies retard. fucking summerfags...

protip: informal fallacies are for (paradoxically) formal arguments, and even in them you don't raise them like an objection in the UN, you fucking faggot.

>>3725925
Watching some shows about Kierkegaard here in Denmark, in relation to his 200th birthday, I wish they had used that pic

>>3726022
Whom should I ask?

Or am I being dense and are you making a joke?

>>3725493
I'm an anti-nihilist.
Antinihilism is the edgiest -ism ever

>>3726026
You are a moron because you are a moron. If you weren't you'd know that ad hominem != insults, it's not ad hominem until i try to discredit your argument on the grounds that you're a fucking idiot, I was just stating that you were. Get real, punk.


>>3726024
You need a name for labels because are used to tell other people about yourself. If you weren't interested in labelling yourself (which is necessarily a public act) you wouldn't need a name for your moral condition. Even if you knew it offhand, you're still using it as a label.

>>3726043
You just rush into every argument losing every time ruinously.

>>3726031
I am sorry for my ignorance. English is not my best language, so I apologize for mixing up "A moral nihilist" and "I don't believe in morality." As well, forgive me for not knowing, but I always thought logic was logic and informal fallacy was still a fallacy and should not be used in any argument whatsoever.

>>3726051
>English is not my best language

Neither is it mine, you humblebragging dweeb.

>informal fallacy was still a fallacy and should not be used in any argument whatsoever

Why not? That would be argumentum ad logicam. Look it up.

>>3726048
Actually, it seems to me that most anons (may or may not be you) here are trying to discredit me on the basis that "Lol final causes.
I seriously wonder how people can still believe in that." or "teleology is basically the most retarded thing everyone has ever thought of," implicitly saying that I am an idiot without actually saying WHY I am an idiot. Same to you you have yet to say WHY I am a moron and say instead that "You are a moron because you are a moron," ironically sounding as if "moron-nes" was an intrinsic value within me (a teleological idea if there ever was one.

>>3725995
The problem with common sense is that there is no common sense.
Common sense is a cloud of varied opinions and each one has his.

Some people believe that its common sense that marriage is only between a man and a woman. I don't.

Some people think it's common sense that some actions are intrinsically good or bad. I don't.

Some people think it's common sense to assume that there is a causal relationship between adjacent spatio-temporal events. I don't.

I believe it's common sense that there is no point in life. Many don't.

I believe it's common sense that human rights don't exist in nature. Many don't.

I believe it's common sense that you don't have to judge literature by how much you like characters, and yet you go on amazon and you read the comments and they all talk about how relatable the characters were.

So what's the point of talking about common sense. It's not even a good starting point for investigation because again, we have no reason to believe that it is any better than any other assumption.
Common sense in the end it's only a way to insert your prejudices into your theory without justifying them.

You put your communities little prejudices in there, in the same way you put the rabbit in the hat, and then you pull them out again saying "Ah-ha! Look at that, we were right all along!"

It's a conservative tactic and all it does is justify one's way of living.

>>3726068
No one cares enough about you to be "trying to discredit" you, those comments were just giving their opinions on the matter. It ain't about you, you paranoid fucker.

>without actually saying WHY I am an idiot.

Why should they? It's obvious to me. It's obvious to them. Why waste the effort pointing out the self-evident?

>. Same to you you have yet to say WHY I am a moron

Proof by contradiction on the very next line:

>If you weren't you'd know that ad hominem != insults, it's not ad hominem until i try to discredit your argument on the grounds that you're a fucking idiot, I was just stating that you were.

Also, you post about concepts you have no clue about, which is a moronic thing to do. See post regarding moral nihilism for evidence.

>ironically sounding as if "moron-nes" was an intrinsic value within me (a teleological idea if there ever was one.

And you don't understand teleology at all either, apparently.

>>3726068
I'm the one that wondered how you can believe in teleology.
Basically the argument is that modern science manages to describe nature without the final cause, that's why we are not using any more aristotle's model for causality.

There is no end in nature, there is no goal for life. Not even reproduction is a goal for life.

The only things that have a final cause are man made artifacts. Instruments. But since you are not an instrument, you have no goal, you have no final cause.

>>3726075
>Some people think it's common sense to assume that there is a causal relationship between adjacent spatio-temporal events. I don't.

hume pls go

>>3726055
What am I supposed to do? I hear by apologize for trying to be humble. There. You got me.

As well, argumentum ad logicam does not apply here. I thank you for your direction to it, but the entire reason this talk of fallacy was that I said that morality is not what the masses think. I am pretty sure that is something that is indeed relevant to an ad populam fallacy.

>>3726100
>I hear by apologize for trying to be humble.

you weren't that's the point.

>argumentum ad logicam does not apply here
>a fallacy [...] should not be used in any argument whatsoever

you raising argumentum ad populum to counter a concept that is DEFINED BY CONSENSUS is fucking retarded and if you can't see why, then you'll just have to wait until you say this idiocy in front of someone more patient than i.

>>3726008
The issue with nihilism can partially be summed up by Wittgenstein's, "the world is the totality of facts, not of things." There exist relations in the world, and a significant part of those relations for any given intelligent organism like us, is the apprehension of value. So while you may not think anything is essentially valuable, you have to grant that some things are as the interface with your personal predilections and values. Furthermore, if it can be such, then it must be in the nature of things as they relate to one another to be such.

Nihilism largely stands on making a straw man of ethics and meaning. Certainly there is a subjective component to these things, but it is merely a component. Also, once you have built up enough regret and shame in your life, you will understand ethics a little better. Young men only have so much sense for it, sorry to say. You need to play and experiment a bit before you can really understand such concerns.

>>3726157
The problem of nihilism is not that things don't have value for you, but that don't have value in itself. Even if you subjectively value something, you still cannot distill a hierarchy of values that goes beyond your claim "I like this because it helps live in the way I like".

Even if you recognize your appetites, you are still blocked t the fact that all that follows for you then is just the logic of the strongest. And that's nihilism.

>>3725493
>using flâneur as a verb
>spelling it flanêur

>>3726184
10/10

>>3725820
Vee cut auf your johnson!

>>3726393
>auf
lel that means 'on' in German
Fucking Americans trying to speak German

>>3726416
Yeah, cause I sure as fuck wasn't typing it in phonetic fashion.

And I'm not even American, you idiotic piece of cum.

>>3725493
Nihilist scum.

>>3726468
>And I'm not even American, you idiotic piece of cum.
You wanna fight, bitch?

>>3726485
say that to my face you little bitch not over the internet and see what happens

"Nice marmot."

Talking to people you don't know on the streets here is a big no-no, people would just mutter something and continue moving.

>>3726568
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oiLfTnrC40

i can't guarantee i would react and i can't say anything else for anyone else.

I swear to holy jesus if someone ever flaneurvers near me, there will be an ass-whoopin

bump

>>3725493
Well OP, to try and satiate your hunger for obscenity.... what the fuck am I writing jesus kill me now.

I'd probably just say 'onya mate' or something really ocker.

>>3725493

Flaneur is a noun.