"The value of nihilistic thinking."

Nihilistic thinking = thinking non-nihilistic

thinking non-nihilistic = thinking non-belief in meaninglessness

thinking non-belief in meaninglessness = thinking meaninglessness non-belief

thinking meaninglessness non-belief = thinking meaningless belief

thinking meaningless belief = thinking meaningful


Nihilism is reality's device to let people think about rationality

How is nihilistic realities devise?

What is the devise, and what is the rationale of nihilistic's reality?

What is the devise for rationale thinking when there is no logic for existence to be found in thinking?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

nihilism is the delusion you can destroy everything and still exist.

"The value of nihilistic thinking," nihilism has no value.

My view is that nihilistic thinking MAY just be an individuals desperate way of trying to disprove the possibility that there is a God.Nobody can prove categorically that there isn’t a God with or without nihilistic thinking so depending upon ones view we can only ever have hope that there is or isn’t a God.

Nihilism is just realism.

Life is inherently meaningless. That doesn't equate to it being 'good' or 'bad', just meaningless. It's just a fact, something that just is.

All things will end, the universe itself will end. By definition that makes everything human beings do, their every action and inaction meaningless.

You could be Mother Teresa or Adolf Hitler, none of it matters. All will be erased. Time itself will cease to exist eventually as well.

Life is meaningful to those who live it, without regard to the opinions of childish minds that seek to impress with their cynicism. Nihilists have never impressed me as being very aware of the lives of their human fellows.

No one is obliged to disprove the existence of "god." Those who claim that here is a "god," or that there are "gods" assumes the burden of proof.

If you choose to create your own 'meaning', that's something that can only be meaningful to you personally. It's subjective, not objective.

Life is objectively meaningless.



I'm sure that serial killers find quite a bit of subjective 'meaning' in their lives through their proclivities. By that metric they certainly wouldn't seem to be nihilists. Are they then more aware of the lives of their human fellows?

If we all accepted nihilism we would be like driftwood in an endless eddy until our physical parts disintegrated. No parts: no thoughts: no being.

I see no reason to consider you an authority on what is objective. What a puny and lame attempt to smear what I've written. A serial killer? Really, is that the best you could come up with? I'm sure that serial killers are aware, in a truncated and shallow way (much like what passes for philosophy at your house) of the lives of others. None of that drivel, however negates what I've written--although it has made you look like a fool.

Is something like gravity objective or subjective? Must one be an 'authority' on the subject of objectivity to acknowledge gravity's existence?



So they wouldn't be nihilists then, would they? Wouldn't they then be partaking in that subjective meaning that you're so keen on caterwauling about? How would this be different than any other form of delusion used as a coping mechanism?



Actually it does, objectively.



Why so salty? I don't think this brief exchange warrants such vitriol.

It's not vitriol, I'm not emotionally involved in this. It's contempt. You are prattling about meaning and meaningless, both of which are subjective terms, born of opinion. Speaking of "objectively meaningless" is hilariously absurd.

Subjective derives from personal feelings or opinions; objective refers to the elimination of subjective perspectives--the reference to fact. While it is certainly reasonable to allege that the cosmos will end someday (and very likely billions of years after mankind has left the scene), and can therefore be considered a fact, it is subjective opinion that attempts to link that to meaning, or the lack thereof.

It's a fact.



Think of the most accomplished person that ever lived, whomever it is. Think about all they achieved and did... Everything that every human being ever does in their life will be erased like it never even happened. Everyone will be forgotten, because there will be no one left to remember. No one left to tell the stories.

What objective difference does anything that anyone does matter in the face of this truth? None.



It is objective by definition. If all things possible to be achieved will be inevitably erased, that means they had no objective meaning in the first place. They can certainly have subjective meaning if given, but for something to have objective meaning, it would require some sense of permanence, a thing that cannot be undone.

The only sound argument you could perhaps make, is that death and undoing are the only things that exist that have objective meaning, because they last forever.



If that's true, then why use all the shaming language?



You sound like an angry middle schooler, sullen because someone proved you objectively wrong. You are acting, objectively, very emotional indeed.

So life is temporary, everybody know that. Do you think you are imparting anything of value, or are you just trying to get others to wallow in your depression? It's nice you want to share, but you're a little late to the game.

My view is that there is no burden on any individual to prove anything one way or the other to any other individual.There either is or isn’t a God/s.Nihilistic thinking doesn’t prove or disprove anything.Its just a view reasoned by thought processes.My view is that human beings are more than thoughts.They just have thoughts and reasonings.Any individual can think/believe what ever they want but they can’t prove or disprove that there is or isn’t a God/s.If the individual wants any more assurances they won’t get them...all they can do is roll the dice.

Nihilistic thinking in my view is associated with just thought and reasoning ONLY.As we are not our thoughts and reasonings,...we just have thoughts...process them...and then come to conclusions...just like a biological computer processes information and churns out results based solely on the information that has been inputted.We therefore cannot totally rely on all the output from our computers.Key....rubbish in ...you get rubbish out.Thats my experience from life.You I think you have decide whether you are just a biological machine with an amazing computer system or much more than that.These biological computers balance themselves out for sure..hence..nihilistic views.I’m ok with the nihilistic view point as it does explain how the physical (carnal) mind works.

There is no more sleazy a technique than to chop up someone's post in a manner which creates a false impression of what that someone has written. I guess that's the best you can do, huh? It is not a fact that the cosmos will end someday, it is entirely possible that it will simply change--from there, it's turtles all the way down. You continue to allege that meaning can be objectively dismissed--even though meaning is the product of subjective valuation, the product of opinion. Either you don't grasp that, or you are so desperately wedded to "being right," that you won't acknowledge it. Here's the sleaze--by cutting up my post, you attempt to make it appear that I was saying that it is subjective opinion that the cosmos will end. You can look at what I wrote just above--but in the post that you are butchering in an attempt to salvage your silly remarks, this is what I wrote:



That is an independent clause. When it isn't trashed in a puerile attempt to score points in an internet debate, it is the same as a free-standing declarative sentence.

If anyone here is acting like a child, it is you. Your argument about "objectively meaningless" got shot down, so you' ve gotten nasty about it. (That really cracks me up, "objectively meaningless.") I assure you that I'm not emotionally involved here (unless one refers to laughter as an emotional response), because you're not that important--not here and not to me.

No one is obliged to disprove a proposition. Those who make claims have assumed the burden of proving their proposition. I see no plausible reason to assert that any "god" exists.