Comment on Anon reads nihilist philosophy

• JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  The fact that I know about LessWrong because of Behind the Bastards should say a whole lot about how “moral” their “rationalism” really neither of those things and personally I feel like their thought predecessors would be pretty embarrassed by them

  source

  • csolisr@hub.azkware.net ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Yeah, rationalism has been twisted into individualism with a lot more steps. If they were truly rational (as in, considering our current knowledge of astrophysics and biology, the heat death of the universe and the origins of survival instinct), they would have probably ended up noticing that attempting to make things better for hypothetical future people is equally as worth(less) as making things better for the people of now - both are merely postponing the unavoidable.

    source
• schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Britt Hartley takes existentialists to the woodshed, pointing out that it’s a fine philosophy if you’re living a comfortable life, but if nothing means anything and your life sucks, might as well put a quarter in the suicide booth if existential philosophy is all you have.

  source

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Is that a refutation? I admit, when I consider how my distant ancestors and the majority of humans throughout history lived, I wonder why they chose to go on, and to create new generations who also lived lives like theirs, and the only answer I have is that they lacked perspective.

    source

    • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

      Correct, but maladaptive and evolutionarily unfit…

      If you want to be entertained, you can watch True Detective Season 1. Someone brought up Rust, already.

      If you want to ruin your life in ten pages, the source is The Last Messiah by Zapffe.

      source
    • Antares@fedinsfw.app ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Lots more community. Relationships and physical play (e.g. sports, theater, art, ritual, dance etc.) were the primary form of entertainment. Brains were capable of enduring in silence for 10 minutes without exploding in anxiety. Plant medicines were socially acceptable including “drugs”.

      Yeah there were diseases, famines, wars, etc. But these weren’t constant threats, often regional until empire developed with (inter)continental trade.

      People had joy and fulfillment, a bit of boredom, and many lacked effective contraceptives, so kids happened.

      source
    • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Rust Cohle explains why pretty well I think. Instinct, it’s burned into enough of us that the few who come to that conclusion don’t have any effect. And I agree with his solution

      source

      • csolisr@hub.azkware.net ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        The fact that, evolutionarily speaking, it's easier to find lifeforms that have a strong survival instinct than lifeforms that question or reject it can be explained with two main reasons. First, assuming that evolution is performed by random adaptations that are then tested by the environment to see if they survive and their wielders reproduce, a lifeform that prioritizes a single task is more statistically probable to develop first than one that performs complex analysis of the environment and then chooses a reaction. Which is to say, dogmatic behavior developed long before critical thinking was even possible, and by the time the latter appeared, the survival instinct was already well baked into the very structure of the brain. Second, beings that prioritize survival tend to live longer than those that end up questioning the survival instinct, as the latter die more often for obvious reasons.

        source
    • baines@lemmy.cafe ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      when the world starts to really collapse in a few years we wont have to wonder

      people will be rationally off themselves left and right

      governments response will be to make suicide extra illegal lol

      source

      • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        It’s sort of paradox that a government that is actively looking to liquidate its excess population would put the kabosh on suicide, but I think it would. Cruelty and control.

        source
  • WhiteOakBayou@lemmy.world ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Existentialism is a response to essentialism though. It isn’t that life has no meaning but that people can be free to choose the meaning and path of their lives. An acorn can only become an oak tree but a person is not born with their future path preordained. The idea is existence before essence instead of essence before existence.

    source

    • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Yes, read Simone Beauvoir along with Sartre. Sartre is kind of a comically a privileged white man. As you say people can be free to choose the path of their lives, but some more than others.

      source
    • baines@lemmy.cafe ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      An acorn can only become an oak tree but a person is not born with their future path preordained

      modern people love thinking this but most people never move even 50 miles from where they were born and the single largest indictor of ‘success’ in life is your parents income

      for example being born in gaza or ukraine right now is pretty damn bleak

      source

      • WhiteOakBayou@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Yes me too. But that same baby born in Gaza could be born 15 miles away and live an entirely different life. That is the whole point. The gazan child is not essentially a victim by virtue of being born in Gaza. The gazan child is likely to be a victim not because she has to be (is essential to her nature) but because someone has chosen to victimise her. What modern people miss is that that distinction was lacking for the first couple thousand years of philosophical thought.

        source
      • spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        You’re both correct, but the underlying point is it’s not guaranteed if you’re a human in Ukraine vs an acorn in the forest. HUGE difference, and only a clown would pretend they’re equivalent.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Just quick short thoughts before I continue reading because I really thought these are immediately striking without further dissection;

  Philosophy aside, the comment on LessWrong that said “Nietzsche is a great source of aphorisms, and may be able to trigger some Deep Thoughts in readers, but a lot of his writing seems more like a sort of performance art to me. At least on a superficial level, he’s much easier to read than Kant or Hegel, but that also means he does not even try to argue his point in a rigorous way”. Spot on, this is like the main barrier to his books. I see this as the first problem you’ll encounter before getting to how fascists twisted his words into justifications for doing fuck-all

  Then, I REALLY this Monthly Review article. This passage pointed out a perspective of the problem initially sounding like a misread about how “this is just doing barbarism but with extra steps” but actually pretty accurately describes how greater powers in the world will take almost anything we try to do and turn it into barbarism: The liberalization and deregulation of the most intimate sphere of the person will completely achieve the fetishism of the commodity. And the sole revolt which will from here on be permitted to the Nietzschean by power, when an irreducible part of his disarmed consciousness has, through misunderstanding, fomented some insurrection, will be total annihilation, bestiality towards the other animal which his masters will have brought into the neighbouring cage.

  I still need to finish it and get to the Marxist critique but thank you for this

  source

  • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works ⁨59⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

    Philosophy aside, the comment on LessWrong that said “Nietzsche is a great source of aphorisms, and may be able to trigger some Deep Thoughts in readers, but a lot of his writing seems more like a sort of performance art to me. At least on a superficial level, he’s much easier to read than Kant or Hegel, but that also means he does not even try to argue his point in a rigorous way”.

    Meh. If rigor were the path to the truth, wouldn’t we have the found the One True Philosophy? At the end of the day, all that matters is if the philosophy vibes with you, which you can discover just as well from a comic book version of the philosophy as painstakingly deriving every point.

    I think thinking you’re using your rational mind to determine the capital-T Truth is delusional.

    source

    • sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz ⁨49⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

      Yeah not so much that. It was kind of refreshing to read something where the author gives up on trying to preempt arguments against him early in the process of creating his work (exhausting, boring, and as time goes on inevitably futile).

      I meant more that the prose is full of self-certain trueisms and has that superficiality to it. It doesn’t discount his points to me either, I’m often a vibes person myself. But it offloads a lot of the cognitive work of basically finishing his philosophy onto you as you’re reading it. I think that’s probably the deeper cause of most other problems people have with his philosophy, like how bad actors took and used it for nefarious shit. But, he was a lonely guy in a lot of pain who took to writing to manage it so that’s par for the course.

      source

      • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works ⁨46⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

        For all the good it does you. The public will ruthlessly interpret your work however it wants; look at Broicism (neé Stoicism) or Christianity.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Ty! All the criticisms I’ve heard I’ve only really absorbed through cultural osmosis so I want to read some hard stuff

  source