Nihilism is self refuting and nihilists' favorite philosopher is socially awkward!?

I have had Imans on ignore for almost a blissful month. Now I've put absos on ignore as well.

ditto

well of course since there is only u out of ur perspectives then u cant see but one, callin me arsehole say all holes u know so surely gonna end in some

for me there is no holes black nor regular, any is objective when freedom of any is the objective thing justification being reality

ur pic is more clear now from what u present urself as, wish u all the best in ur final jump to the hole u pick

Arn't Imans/Abmos considered TROLLS? If so, why are they censored by our hamsters? Frank Apriso was once ostracised for nothing compared the disruptive atrocities of the trolls.

I'm sorry, I meant to ask why the "troll(s)" has NOT been censored by our hamsters, as was Frank, who nobody considers a troll.

which show ur philosophical mind indeed very logical question isnt it

the only right question now is why r u in philosophy since obviously u r not related to in anyways

I consider them trolls. An internet troll is a person who makes dumb remarks only to laugh at the people who take them seriously.

Imans/Absos seems almost too ridiculous to be realistic, which means that he's either a very detached and disturbed individual (threatening to kill people in real life (or was that just my misinterpretation of bad English?)), or he's a fake persona invented only to annoy others.

Either way, it's a disruptive element that I'm glad we can just weed away.
When it comes to why our hamsters gnawed at frank, yet leaves these pests alone, my guess is that it's because Frank makes sense some of the time at least ( ) which puts weight to his words. Imans is so obviously ridiculous that even a rodent can't be asked to pay attention.

u r such dirty hypocrit that u r burrying urself alive alone there, my posts are written in words while u clearly mean to use the way of killin their true n real values exclusively in ur will to deny all individuals existence facts
as if there is nothing but what it could b said or forced or possessed by powers abuse to inferiority

the fact of ur words say clearly how u should b banned from here, as being the troll hundredpercent of any troll definition, when u r obviously against individual values being all to true existence, then not only existential true character of philosophy would force u out of its reality, but more u surely are considered kicked out of all humanity that u clearly mean to kill individually

I guess so.

The general definition of nihilism is the refuting of all values,laws,rules and other aspects of life.(So for example the "political nihilism " or the refutation of laws and rules is seen in the anarchism,the post-modern period can be seen also as nihilism,christianity which we can think that it is against nihilism is from the nietzshean perspective the refutation of values which are in correspondance with the nature and the human life ).
The nihilism from the nietzschean point of view can be caracterised as positive nihilism and negative one.The positive nihilism is not only to accept that we live in a world without purpose,that there isn't any truth to be searched of(Kant && Nietzsche),that the world is only the interpretation of our views and ideas(in the last page of 'thus spoke zarathustra' he says 'that is what i have?what about you),nihilism is also the destruction of old values and the creating of new ones(transvaluation),ones that correspond to the human perfection,to the volkish,the negative nihilism is the passive nihilism that resigns itself with the decomposition of the old values.

Actually, you've made a number of erroneous statements. Besides the historically inaccurate, and irrelevant, point regarding the cause of Nietzsche's madness, it should also be made clear that Nietzsche, while in his philosophical prime, regarded his philosophy as the antithesis of a nihilist position. He regarded Platonism (and its "modern" idealist derivatives) as representatives of nihilism, and his philosophy as the "cure". In his view, the subjects of his criticism preferred an unapproachable ideal to the complex, "impure" reality before them. He sought to embrace the experiences presented to him, rather than deny it and pursue the untouchable.

Nihilists that elect Nietzsche as their heresiarch do so by fundamentally misunderstanding his thought; similarly, you do the same by holding him responsible for their reactions. Both of you make the mistake of viewing his iconoclasm as nihilism.

Re: "just because there isn't an obvious answer to the meaning of life doesn't mean one doesn't exist": Nietzsche would have wholeheartedly agreed. In fact, he would have insisted that the person who does not require a "reason" for living, is the person who most fully exercises and endures "existence." On the other hand, he probably would have disdained any "reason to live", being alive was itself enough reason to live.

And as for your characterization of the idea of the Übermensch as the right to be the ultimate bully -- that is very disingenuous. Nietzsche meant to use the ideal of the Übermensch to imply and implement the idea that individuals, as well as humankind at large, are capable of overcoming what he perceived as their weaknesses, both physical and psychological -- not to encourage the exploitation of the weaknesses of others.

It's easy to disprove the things that you have said -- all i have to do is read the source material. Why don't you give it a try?

Nietzsche was not a nihilisit he was an existentialist.
ad hominem attack the arugerment not the person
also you misunderstand his writeings on the ubermensch

i dont think you can prove what you are saying

begging the question, how is it self refuting

nihilism can be objective or subjective or artistic or etc etc..

i love to amuse you ragman, nietsche didt die in 1889 or your date but he died on april 30 1945, also he was born again and opened trade with china

What, me socially awkward?


Never met a nihilist I didn't like....

Nietzsche: 1844 - 1900

Just because we can think up a question or invent a concept, that doesn't mean they have any relevance to reality.



It could be argued that the ubermensch is an idea about a human being that has overcome the animal in himself.
An example could be me. For me to become an ubermensch, I would have to confront all the little inconsistencies in my personality and my beliefs. I believe the western exploitation of the rest of the world is criminal, and yet I live with it's benefits. I think the industrialized slaughter of animals is cruel and insane, and yet I eat the meat produced in such a way. I have double standards. One for me and mine, and one for "the others". This causes me grief and pain and conflict, which I spread around in self righteousness. In other words, I am an ignorant and destructive monkey with an inflated idea of myself, as are most humans.

I know what I have to do to change this. I don't know if I am strong enough to actually do it. Especially since society is so accommodating towards such lifestyles. But if I were to try, and if I succeeded, I think I would be closer to embodying the ideal Nietzche referred to as the ubermensch.

Of course, this is my interpretation, and I am not an expert on Nietzche. But from what little I know, the ubermensch destroys the human in the same way the butterfly destroys the larvae.

Excellent!

Not certain? The man lost it after watching a man whip a horse. The poor guy was trapped in a violent world with his humanity bottled up his whole life. The "schizophrenia" episodes is Nietzsche's internal war not being won over by him, but the internal war consuming him. When the brain cannot solve something internally, it projects it externally, as the brain does not like it when people suppress information, hence "guilty consciousness".